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. It discloses several important behaviors: case-insensitive matching, full-archive search (not a recent window), and that results include an excerpt around body hits and indicate whether the match is on title or body. This is substantial behavioral disclosure, though it does not explicitly state read-only nature or potential performance implications. The guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise, with two paragraphs that are front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses only four sentences, each providing distinct value: the first gives the primary function, the second explains the archive coverage and interpretation of zero results, and the third describes output format details. No fluff or redundancy.

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 four parameters (all schema-documented) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to call it correctly. It explains the search scope, output format (excerpt, match type), and the meaning of zero results. It does not require additional return-type documentation since it describes the result structure explicitly. No critical information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context about how parameters relate (e.g., searching titles and bodies) but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already specifies for each parameter. It does not enhance understanding of limit, offset, or folder_id beyond their schema descriptions.

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 tool's verb (search), resource (notes), and scope (titles and full note bodies), and explicitly mentions case-insensitivity. It also differentiates from list_notes by emphasizing that it searches content, not just lists notes. The clarity is high and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to search note content, rather than listing or retrieving specific notes. It explicitly notes that the entire archive is searched, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, which would strengthen the guidance. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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