Search inside all canvases

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 usefully discloses that locked boxes are never searched and that results include canvases and matching cards with ids and dates, but omits permissions, pagination, and read-only status (though 'Search' implies it).

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?

Three sentences: search scope, return shape, exclusion. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description supplies search scope, return content, and an important exclusion. It could still clarify query syntax and pagination, but it is largely 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 coverage is 100% and the query parameter is already described as text or #tag. The description adds value by listing what can be matched (card text, titles, #tags, KLYPIX labels, readings), clarifying the parameter's scope beyond the 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 (canvases) and enumerates searchable content (card text, titles, #tags, KLYPIX labels, readings) across every canvas. The scope 'every canvas in the vault' distinguishes it from read_canvas and list_canvases even without naming those siblings.

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?

Implies usage by describing cross-canvas search of card content, but never states when to choose this over search_all_brains or read_canvas, nor any exclusions. Guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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