search_notes

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

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already cover the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: that the returned `id` is the only way to obtain a note ID needed by read_note/edit_note, and that the snippet and other fields help distinguish same-titled notes. It also discloses the sort order (most recently modified first) and output format (tab-separated with a date format).

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 efficiently written, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by the return format and usage guidance. Every paragraph earns its place — the return-format detail, the id significance, and the fallback guidance are all substantive. Slightly verbose in places but no wasted sentences.

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?

This is a rich description for a search tool: it specifies the sort order, output format with column details and date format, what the id is used for (relationship to read_note/edit_note), when to fall back to the sibling tool, and the semantic meaning of 'no matches'. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to further describe returns. This is 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `query` semantics well ('title contains query') but does not explain `limit` beyond what the schema's default of 10 implies. The description is thorough about output columns but lighter on the limit parameter. Still, the query parameter is well-covered.

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 specifies 'Find notes whose TITLE contains query, most recently modified first' — a specific verb ('find/search'), resource ('notes'), and scope filter ('TITLE contains query'). It distinguishes from the sibling search_note_text by explicitly noting it searches titles only vs bodies.

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 when-to-use guidance is present: 'If it returns no matches -- or you are after notes that mention something rather than are titled after it -- fall back to search_note_text.' It also warns that 'no matches' doesn't mean content is absent, clarifying a critical semantic nuance.

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