anki_find_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value beyond annotations by explicitly stating the output shape ('Returns ids only') and providing search syntax examples, which clarify expected behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a well-formatted code block of examples. Every line is informative and contributes to understanding the query syntax. There is no redundant or vague wording, making it appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already documented. The description covers the tool's purpose, query syntax, and the relationship to `anki_get_notes_info`. It lacks only minor details like error handling or result ordering, but these are not essential given the output schema and annotations.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the `query` parameter by providing numerous examples of Anki search syntax (deck:, tag:, note:, wildcard, etc.), which go beyond the schema's single-line definition. No additional info on `response_format` is needed since the schema already explains it.

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 opens with 'Find note ids matching an Anki search query', which is a specific verb+resource+query structure. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating 'Returns ids only — pass them to `anki_get_notes_info` to see the actual content', which differentiates it from the note-fetching sibling.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool ('Uses Anki's own search syntax, the same one as the browser's search bar') and gives a direct pointer to a sibling tool for the next step ('pass them to `anki_get_notes_info`'). It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, but the search syntax and workflow make it evident.

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