note_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key behavior: search results are ranked pointers with excerpts, not whole notes, and that note_read is required to open a full note. It does not explicitly state side-effect status, but as a search operation this is reasonably implied.

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 front-load the purpose, state the return behavior, and provide the sibling routing. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 description is complete for a search tool: it covers what to do before calling, what results contain, how to open a full note, and when to call it. Since output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return fields.

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?

All five parameters are already documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to restate them. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find existing notes') and adds a distinctive scope ('before writing a new one'). It also differentiates from siblings by noting it returns pointers with excerpts rather than full notes, which is clearly separate from note_read.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: call this before note_capture to extend rather than duplicate knowledge, and use note_read to open a returned item. This gives an agent clear routing between the sibling tools.

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