apple_notes_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only:' largely restates structured data. The one piece of added behavior is the title-substring-only matching constraint, which is useful; nothing is said about pagination, folder scoping, or result ordering.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope constraint lands before anything else. The 'Read-only:' prefix mildly duplicates the annotations, which keeps it from being maximally economical.

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 4-parameter search tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description omits pagination behavior (limit/offset), folder scoping, and any indication of what is returned. The core matching rule is covered, but an agent cannot call this correctly with confidence beyond the required query.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It adds only a hint about 'query' matching titles; limit, offset, and folderId are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so pagination and folder scoping semantics are invisible.

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 ('find'), resource ('Notes'), and matching scope ('by title substring'), and the negative clause rules out body search, so an agent knows this is a title-match lookup rather than a full-text search. It does not name the adjacent siblings (apple_notes_list, apple_notes_get) to distinguish list-everything vs. fetch-by-id, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clause 'this does not search note bodies' is genuine when-not guidance, implying the tool should be used for known-title lookups rather than content search. However, it never states when to prefer this over apple_notes_list or apple_notes_get, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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