notes

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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint by disclosing return shape and ordering, CJK tokenization limitations, fast-path NoteStore.sqlite access requiring Full Disk Access, in-memory body search, locked-note skipping, and fallback behavior. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and return shape, then moves into access and behavior details. It is dense but mostly earns its place; 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation and 'Automation access is the floor' is slightly cryptic.

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 an output schema and non-trivial access paths, the description covers return shape, degraded mode, and body-search limitations. It still leaves title-query semantics and sibling choice under-specified, but is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 single parameter title has 0% schema description coverage. The description usefully says search covers title, snippet, and body and explains body tokenization, but it never explicitly defines title as the query string, match type, or exactly how the parameter drives those searches.

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 and resource: search Notes by title, snippet, and note body. It names notes_all and note_bodies, but does not explicitly say how this search tool differs from them, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Provides useful access context: the fast path requires Full Disk Access, otherwise it degrades to an Automation title search. It also points to notes_all and note_bodies, but never states when to choose this tool over those alternatives or when not to use it.

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