mcp-granola

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses important behavioral traits: it's a client-side filter (not server-side search), operates on cached list_notes response, has a 200-note limit, returns up to limit matches, and performs case-insensitive substring matching. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics or error conditions.

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 description is perfectly concise - one sentence that packs essential information about scope, method, and limitations. Every word earns its place with zero waste, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the client-side nature, 200-note limit, and substring matching. However, it doesn't describe the return format (what fields are included) or what happens when no matches are found, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the search operates on 'title + summary' and the 200-note context, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('client-side substring search') and resource ('list_notes response') with precise scope ('title + summary'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning it operates on list_notes response rather than direct database access, unlike get_note or list_notes.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('client-side substring search over the list_notes response') and mentions the 200-note limit, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for substring matching rather than exact or structured queries.

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