search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful information about Joplin's pagination cap ('caps this at 100') and page numbering, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention authentication/rate limits. Being a 'search' implies non-destructive behavior, but the description misses an explicit safety statement.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bulleted list of parameters with clear definitions. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or redundancy. The key information is front-loaded, making it easy to scan 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 tool's moderate complexity (3 params, pagination, query syntax), the description covers the essential elements: what is searched, syntax examples, pagination behavior, and parameter defaults. An output schema exists, so return types need not be described. It lacks details about error handling or auth requirements, but those are not critical for a search tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema provides minimal semantics beyond types and defaults, while the description's Args section adds meaningful meaning: 'query: Search query string', 'limit: Max results per page (Joplin caps this at 100)', 'page: Page number, starting at 1'. It also gives examples of valid query syntax, which significantly enhances parameter understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Full-text search notes using Joplin's search syntax' with concrete examples ('title:foo', 'tag:bar'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notes (no full-text search) and get_note (retrieves a single note). The verb 'search' plus the resource 'notes' is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage through the Joplin search syntax examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_notes. There are no exclusionary guidelines or mention of scenarios where one should prefer another tool. The examples provide context but not direct 'when not to use' guidance.

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