Search notes

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavior: FTS5 prefix AND matching, every word being required, no relevance ranking, and the exact return shape (summaries with matched_in and a snippet). This gives the agent strong expectations for invocation and response handling.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence adds distinct value: behavior, limitations, return format, and routing to alternatives. There is 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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, read-only annotation, and lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what an agent needs: query semantics, result content, and guidance on sibling tools. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema is minimal and has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It richly explains the q parameter's prefix AND semantics. The limit parameter is not elaborated, though its schema default and range are already visible.

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 over note titles, bodies, and AI-enhanced text. It also clearly differentiates this tool from siblings by specifying what it returns and what it does not do (no semantic search, no relevance score).

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use alternatives: 'use list_notes to browse and get_note for a full body.' It also clarifies the search semantics, so an agent can decide whether this tool fits the need versus semantic or browsing tools.

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