goodnotes_search_board_scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful note that no browser/session needs to be opened, which is a genuine behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It does not disclose result shape, pagination behavior, or search semantics (substring vs exact), which matters 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It uses its words efficiently, though 'viewports' is unexplained terminology that costs a little clarity for no gain.

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 four-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the description leaves too much unspecified: which scan must be supplied, how query matching works, and how paging behaves. The readOnly annotations cover safety, but the calling contract remains under-described.

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 four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: scanId is never mentioned, and limit/offset pagination plus the query string's syntax and matching behavior are unexplained. Only the existence of a text search is implied.

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 a specific resource ('saved text locations across scanned whiteboard viewports'), which distinguishes it from the sibling library/document search tools by scoping to a single scan. The wording is slightly jargon-heavy ('viewports') but an agent can identify the operation.

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?

'without opening the browser' implies a reason to prefer this over browsing a scan interactively, and the required scanId implicitly ties it to a specific scan. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus goodnotes_search_document or goodnotes_search_library, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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