search_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the HTTP method and a 'readonly-owner' tier, hinting at read-only behavior. However, it does not explain potential behaviors like filtering semantics, result limits, or ownership scope beyond the cryptic tier label.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose and result, plus endpoint and tier metadata. Every word earns its place without 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?

Given 7 parameters, a nested extra_filters object, and no output schema or annotations, this description is insufficient for correct invocation. It lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and details about response format beyond 'IDs', making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description provides zero explanation of the 7 input parameters, and schema coverage is 0%. Parameter names like customerIDs and dateStart are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving an agent without clear guidance on how to construct valid queries.

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 action ('Search for customer notes') and the result ('return matching IDs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_notes which likely return full data. The endpoint mapping ('POST /note/search') adds technical specificity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_notes or other search tools. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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