search_notebook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape ('titles and content') and read-only nature inferred from 'search', but says nothing about result limits, pagination, ranking/matching semantics, or empty-result behavior. Adequate but with notable gaps for a search tool.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose and content scope effectively, but the four example questions occupy most of the description and are repetitive in structure, adding length without proportional new information. Some pruning could tighten it.

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 single-parameter search with no output schema, the description gives a clear purpose, content scope, return format, and usage examples. What's missing is only secondary (match/ranking behavior, limits), which is acceptable at this complexity level.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is high. The description adds practical value by demonstrating with examples what kind of text the query should contain (concepts, personalities, trading phenomena), going slightly beyond the schema's 'keyword or phrase'.

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 (search) and resource (TradeZylo Notebook) and enumerates exactly what the notebook contains (rules, routines, psychology lessons, notes), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_playbook and get_daily_notes.

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 four example questions strongly imply when to use this tool (keyword search over free-text notes), including the semantic domain of 'revenge trading' and 'liquidity sweeps'. However, it never explicitly excludes sibling tools or states 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.