search_notes

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is declared. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are truncated with HTML stripped, and the total match count is returned to support pagination. That is genuinely useful disclosure for a search tool.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place, with the core behavior front-loaded and the alternative and pagination note trailing. No waste.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so (previews, truncation, match count). For a read-only search tool this is nearly complete, though it leaves limit/offset defaults and max results undescribed.

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 only 33% — only 'query' is documented (with rich Anki syntax examples), while 'limit' and 'offset' are bare. The description partially compensates by explaining that the total match count enables offset-based pagination, but says nothing about limit semantics or defaults. Baseline 3 given partial compensation.

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 ('Search notes') plus the return shape (compact previews, HTML stripped, fields truncated). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_notes, so an agent can distinguish them without opening either schema.

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?

Provides a clear routing rule: use this for search previews, and 'Use get_notes for full field content.' That names the alternative and the condition selecting it. It doesn't cover other siblings (list_decks, get_weak_cards), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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