search_note_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context: same row format as search_notes, ordering (most recently modified first), and that matching operates on plain text so formatting doesn't affect results. A small step beyond annotation coverage, hence a strong 4.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in sentence one, then formatting/ordering details, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema (covering return format), 2 simple params, and rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false). The description covers search scope, ordering, plain-text matching, and sibling distinction. Slightly short of a 5 only because limit behavior could be spelled out, but overall complete for this tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. The description clarifies 'query' semantics (matches against title and body text, plain-text based) but does not explain the 'limit' parameter's behavior beyond the schema's default of 10. Given two params with one well-explained and the other left to its visible default, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs full-text search over note text (title and body), with the specific verb 'find' and the resource 'notes whose TEXT'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling search_notes by contrasting text-mention searching vs title searching, making purpose and differentiation 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this when looking for notes that *mention* something rather than notes titled after it; use search_notes when you know the title, as it is faster.' This gives clear when-to-use AND when-not-to-use with an alternative named, which is exemplary.

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