search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: locked notes only match on title and body is never substring-matched, preventing content leakage. This goes beyond a simple 'search' statement. It does not mention pagination or result ordering, but the limit parameter and output schema provide some structure.

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 purpose, followed by a concise and relevant caveat. Every word earns its place; no redundant phrasing.

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 an output schema present and only two parameters, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, scope, and a critical privacy-related limitation. It does not elaborate on search semantics like case sensitivity, but given the tool's simplicity and output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'q' parameter by explaining what is searched (titles and body) and the locked-note exception. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter behavior beyond what the schema's default indicates. Partial compensation but not full.

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 tool performs full-text search over the caller's active notes' titles and body text. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_notes and get_note by focusing on search, not listing or retrieval.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when full-text search over active notes is needed. It provides context about the caller's active notes, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. This is acceptable but not top-tier.

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