search_notes

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states the output but does not disclose behavioral traits such as case sensitivity, search scope (title vs. body), pagination, sorting, or read-only nature. The description is too minimal for an agent to infer safe usage.

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 very concise with two sentences covering purpose and output. However, it could be improved by adding a brief note on parameter usage without becoming verbose. Currently it is efficient but lacks depth.

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 the large set of sibling tools and the absence of parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is insufficient. It does not differentiate this search from other retrieval tools, nor does it explain behavior beyond basic output. An output schema exists but is not described in the tool description.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage. The tool description only mentions 'by keyword', which relates to the 'query' parameter, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or its default value. The description adds some meaning for query but is incomplete.

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 that the tool searches Joplin notes by keyword and returns note titles and IDs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_note (single note) or list_notes_in_notebook (filtered by notebook).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify that this tool is for keyword-based search while filtering by notebook or tag requires other tools. No exclusions or context are given.

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