goodnotes_search_document

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: OCR is bounded and local, coverage can be incomplete, and provenance is reported, plus a caveat that absence is not evidence. However it never states cost/latency implications of OCR or what the response looks like, and with readOnly/openWorld already declared the added value is moderate.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the caveat, no filler. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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?

Covers the key behavioral caveats for an OCR-assisted search, but with no output schema and 8 undocumented parameters an agent still cannot predict result shape or tune paging/caching behavior. Adequate but with clear 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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the explanatory burden and only partially does: it hints at OCR bounding (maxOcrPages, ocrIfMissing) and export scoping (exportId). It says nothing about query syntax, limit, refresh, url, or caseSensitive, leaving most parameters opaque.

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 and resource ('Search exported pages') and adds a distinguishing mechanism ('bounded local OCR where text is missing'). It is clearly narrower than goodnotes_search_library or goodnotes_read_document, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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?

Implied usage is searching exported page content, with a caveat that missing results are not proof about handwriting. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or referral to a sibling search tool, so the agent must infer selection.

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