search_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden and does so admirably. It discloses the exact search scope (titles only), the return structure {items, count, hasMore}, and the pagination behavior (increment offset by limit when hasMore is true).

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?

Three sentences, each essential: purpose/scope, return structure/pagination, and pointer to get_note. No fluff or redundant details.

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 3-param search tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is completely adequate. It covers scope, output shape, pagination, and the next step for full content, leaving no significant 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to combine offset and limit for pagination, which goes beyond the individual schema definitions.

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 searches notes by matching against titles/names only, with an explicit exclusion of body content. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from search_emails and list_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?

Provides clear context for using the tool (search by title/name) and explicitly directs users to get_note for full content. Does not explicitly contrast with list_notes for listing all notes, but the pagination guidance and get_note pointer give useful usage direction.

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