Search boards

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by describing the result shape (a board with matched cards under 'matches' and ancestor boards under 'path'), the edge case where a title match yields no matches, the default ordering, and the hard limit of only the first page of boards.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then layers result shape, ordering, and the follow-up tool in a logical sequence of four sentences. The parenthetical '(matches)'/'(path)' clarifications are worth their space; the Milanote analogy is slightly decorative but aids intuition.

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 output schema and a simple two-parameter input, the description supplies everything needed: what matching means, what each result contains, how results are ordered, and the first-page limitation that would otherwise cause an agent to assume completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the enum already documents sort and query. The description adds only modest meaning—clarifying that ordering follows last-viewed or last-modified and that matching spans board titles as well as card text—but supplies no syntax or matching-rule details beyond that.

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 and resource ('Find boards and cards by text'), plus scope: Milanote's own search over every board the caller can open. It also implicitly separates itself from full-board reads by telling the agent to use get_board on a result to see all cards.

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?

Gives concrete usage context through the 'Search icon in Milanote' analogy and an explicit follow-up path via get_board. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use list_recent_boards for browsing rather than searching), so it stops short of full routing.

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