search_articles

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 does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether results are ranked or limited, whether matching is case-sensitive, or any pagination behavior. Only the return fields are mentioned, leaving most behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action, app, and matching scope. No wasted words, though it crams scope, matching fields, and return values into one clause.

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 one-parameter search tool, the description covers what it does and what it returns, which is adequate. But with no annotations, no output schema, and no mention of read-only nature, result limits, or sibling differentiation, it leaves meaningful gaps 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already fully documents the query field. The description adds the detail that matching happens in both 标题 and 正文, which is mildly more than the schema restates, meriting the baseline 3.

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 verb (搜索/search), a resource (文章/articles), the target app (Apple Notes), and the matching fields (标题和内容关键词). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_articles or get_article (which imply retrieval without search).

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 — search when you have a keyword — but does not state when to use this tool versus list_articles (enumerate all) or get_article (fetch one by ID). No exclusions or alternatives are named, so routing is left to inference.

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