Search Notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. The description adds the scope of search (title and body) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or whether the search is case-sensitive. Given the safety coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description is a single sentence with no waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool. However, a bit more detail (e.g., 'returns matching notes') could be added without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (present but not shown) and simple input parameters with full schema descriptions, the description covers the core functionality of searching by keyword in title and body. It does not mention ordering or case-sensitivity, but these are minor given the presence of output schema. The completeness is adequate for a straightforward search tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (query, limit, offset). The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score is 3 as specified.

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 verb (search), resource (notes), and scope (by keyword in title and body). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_notes (which returns all notes) and semantic_search (which uses semantic indexing), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 description does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_notes, scan_notes, or semantic_search. While the purpose is clear, the lack of when-not or alternative references leaves the agent without decision-making context.

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