search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the search capability and mentions 'advanced filtering options' without disclosing behavior such as return format, pagination, result ordering, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a search tool with no output schema.

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, 13 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 7 parameters, including a nested config object, and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the search returns, whether results are paginated, or how the advanced filters behave. The schema covers parameters but leaves operational context missing.

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 100%, with each parameter having a description (e.g., query, config, filters). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Search across all notes in mem.ai', which is a specific verb (Search) and resource (notes), with optional query and advanced filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like get_note (retrieves a single note), list_notes (lists notes without search), and search_collections (searches collections).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_note, list_notes, or any exclusions. The word 'Search' implies a distinct use case, but there is no explicit or clear contextual guidance.

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