obsidian_find_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but never states read-only safety, pagination/limit behavior (default 20, cap 100 exists only in schema), or what the response contains, so an agent gets no behavioral disclosure beyond the bare purpose.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with no filler and the core criteria surfaced immediately. It is arguably too terse for a five-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 tool with five parameters, a nested object, no required fields, no annotations and no output schema, the description omits how filters combine, default/cap behavior, and return shape. An agent can guess the intent but lacks enough to invoke it confidently in edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does map loosely onto tag, folder, property and query, but mentions 'title' for which no parameter exists and omits limit entirely, and it never explains the nested property object's name/value pair.

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 (discovery/find) and resource (notes), plus the dimensions it can filter on. That distinguishes it reasonably from obsidian_list_files and obsidian_search, though it never names a sibling or clarifies how it differs from obsidian_search_context.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether criteria combine (AND/OR), whether tag/folder/property/query can be mixed, or when to prefer this over obsidian_search or obsidian_get_tag_notes. The phrase 'multi-criteria' implies some combining but leaves the mechanics to inference.

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