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, and it does well: it discloses the retrieval stack (BM25 + cosine, bge-m3 1024d) and the graceful degradation chain (embedding server -> BM25-only -> file scan). It omits operational traits like latency, result limits, or guarantee of ordering, but the fallback behavior is exactly the kind of non-obvious context an agent needs.

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?

The scope constraint leads, the routing hint follows, then the mechanics. Every sentence earns its place and there is no padding despite covering three distinct topics.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter plus fallback behavior are covered. The only gap is the absence of guidance relative to the broader set of search_* siblings, which for a 48-tool namespace matters somewhat.

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% on a single required parameter, so the description must compensate and does: it tells the agent the query accepts both natural language and keywords, which materially affects how the query string should be formed. Given only one simple parameter, this is adequate compensation.

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 (hybrid semantic + full-text search) over a specific resource (knowledge notes) and explicitly scopes out daily news archives. The sibling search_news_tool is named, so an agent can route between the two without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes news queries to search_news_tool, which is the key disambiguation in this sibling cluster. It does not, however, distinguish itself from other retrieval siblings such as search_articles, search_snippets, find_related_notes, or search_grouped, so usage is clear but not fully delimited.

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