search_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that only metadata is returned, not content, which is a critical non-obvious trait. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or other limitations.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and the most important behavioral nuance.

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?

The description covers the search scope and return type, but since there is no output schema, the exact metadata fields are unspecified. Additionally, no guidance on when to choose this over list_notes or read_note is provided. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 already documents query and titles_only with descriptions. The description clarifies the default search scope (both titles and body), which adds context for titles_only. However, the limit parameter lacks a schema description and is not addressed in the description.

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 performs full-text search across note titles and body text, and explicitly notes it returns metadata not content. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_note (content retrieval) and list_notes (listing).

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 usage for finding notes by search terms, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The 'metadata, not content' note gives some guidance, but lacks direct sibling comparisons.

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