search_notes

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description confirms this and adds return details (fields, tags, IDs), but nothing about pagination, error behavior, or rate limits. It adds some value but is not exceptionally rich beyond the annotation.

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 concise and well-structured with examples, Args, and Returns sections. Every line adds value; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a 2-parameter search tool, the description covers the search syntax, parameter semantics, and return values. The output schema is present, so return format does not need further elaboration. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 descriptions cover 0% of the parameters, so the description must carry the full burden. It fully explains 'query' as an Anki search query string with multiple examples, and 'limit' as max results with a default. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema type definitions.

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 action ('Search for existing cards') and the resource ('using Anki query syntax'), with concrete examples. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_notes, update_note, and delete_notes, which are clearly write operations.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (searching existing cards) and provides syntax examples that imply usage patterns. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools like list_decks for deck-level queries.

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