Search Alt notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'searches by title, etc.' and does not disclose whether content is also searched, whether results are sorted, paginated, or what the output shape is. This is minimal disclosure for a read operation.

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 sentence that communicates the essential action with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important gaps: what exactly 'etc.' includes, how results are returned, and any limitations. The agent can guess the purpose but not fully anticipate behavior.

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%, so the parameter is already documented as a search term. The description adds a small amount of meaning by indicating the query is matched against titles ('제목 등'). This slightly exceeds the baseline but does not fully explain what 'etc.' covers.

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 action (search) on a specific resource (Alt notes) with a scope ('by title, etc.'). This is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like list_recent_notes and get_note_info, though the trailing 'etc.' makes the scope slightly fuzzy.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool to find notes by title. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling tools like list_recent_notes, nor any exclusion criteria. The context is inferable but not stated.

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