search_notes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'advanced syntax support' which adds some context about query capabilities, but it doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., results format, pagination behavior), whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), or any rate limits or authentication needs. For a search tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which might help with return values), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral details like pagination or result limits, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with this many undocumented parameters, more context is needed to be minimally viable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters or their semantics (e.g., what 'search_type' or 'entity_types' mean), failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves the agent with no guidance on how to use the parameters effectively.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool searches across all content in the knowledge base, which provides a clear verb ('search') and resource ('knowledge base content'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search' (which appears to be a simpler search) or 'fetch'/'read_note' (which retrieve specific content), leaving the purpose somewhat vague in relation to alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions 'advanced syntax support' which implies this tool should be used for complex queries, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. other search or retrieval tools like 'search' or 'read_note'. No guidance is provided on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.