search_evernote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is read-only, whether an Evernote connection is required, how many results are returned, search scope, or pagination behavior. It only restates the search facets.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core purpose efficiently.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how search criteria are supplied (despite naming keyword, tag, notebook), whether Evernote must be connected, or what results look like.

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 has 0 parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions keyword, tag, and notebook as search facets but cannot map them to actual parameters, adding little beyond the empty 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?

States a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'Evernote notes', with search facets (keyword, tag, notebook). It is clear but does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_notes or list_notes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named (e.g., search_notes, evernote_read_note, evernote_list_notebooks), and no prerequisite such as connecting Evernote first. Only an implied use case is present.

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