goodnotes_search_library

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: results carry snapshot timestamps and index gaps so staleness is visible, and it explicitly says it does not open the browser, ruling out a UI side effect the agent might otherwise assume. Return format itself is not described, but the freshness caveat is the more valuable disclosure.

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?

Four short sentences with the core scope front-loaded and no filler. The final sentence about the browser reads as an afterthought in placement, but it still earns its place as a negative capability statement.

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 seven-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema search tool, the description leaves most inputs unexplained and does not clarify pagination (limit/offset) or how folder scoping interacts with query text. Annotations carry safety, but an agent still cannot confidently fill the filter parameters from this text.

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 seven parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: only `query` is indirectly explained (empty query lists items). `kind`, `content`, `folderPath` (a UUID array), `limit`, `offset`, and `includeMissing` get no meaning, constraints, or defaults restated beyond the raw schema.

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: searches persistent local document titles and indexed text across folders. The scope (local, persistent, cross-folder) helps separate it from the single-document sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

One concrete usage hint is given: an empty query lists known items, which tells the agent how to enumerate the library. Beyond that there is no when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. goodnotes_search_document) for narrowing to a single document, so selection is implied rather than directed.

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