search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the search is hybrid and that results are notes with their best section, and it notes the include_private permission constraint. However, it does not explain read-only behavior, limit/pagination, result ordering, or include_archived defaults.

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 front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then compactly lists relevant filters. It is appropriately sized and contains no filler or redundant restatement.

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 core search behavior and return format, but with 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, it leaves important gaps around limit, include_archived, area semantics, and default behavior. It is adequate but not complete for an agent to invoke with full confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 8 parameters. It adds meaning for vault as a vault folder name, project as a folder slug, type with examples, and the include_private caveat, but leaves query, limit, area, and include_archived unexplained or underspecified.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: hybrid meaning-and-keyword search over vault notes, returning notes with their best section. It clearly identifies the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as find_by_jira or open_note.

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?

Usage is implied by the search-over-notes framing and by the filter list, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The include_private caveat gives one useful condition, but broader when/when-not guidance is absent.

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