Search notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond them: results are 'matching notes with snippets and scores, best match first.' It also reveals the use of 'Obsidian's own search,' which hints at supported search syntax. It doesn't discuss auth or rate limits, but for a read-only search these are not critical.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every clause adds value: scope ('across the vault'), engine ('Obsidian's own search'), returned data ('matching notes with snippets and scores'), and ordering ('best match first'). There is no filler 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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source for understanding the return value. It says 'matching notes with snippets and scores' but does not state what a 'note' object contains (e.g., path, title, or ID) or how to reference results for subsequent actions like read_note. This is a real gap for an agent trying to chain tools, so a higher score is not warranted.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the query is a full-text search over the vault, rather than just 'Search text.' It also contextualizes the ordering of results relative to relevance ('best match first'). The limit parameter remains schema-defined, but the added query semantics justify a 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across the vault.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like read_note (reading a single note), list_folder (listing folders), and get_metadata (viewing metadata). The added return details (snippets, scores, best match first) further pin down its unique role.

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 phrase 'Full-text search across the vault' establishes a clear use case: finding notes by content across the entire vault. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., use read_note when you already know a note path), so it stops short of a 5.

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