notes_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: it operates through the public AppleScript dictionary, returns IDs and titles rather than private database contents, and requires the automation:Notes permission. It omits pagination/limit behavior, which is a minor gap given the annotations.

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 compact clauses with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted sentences. The bracketed version/permission tag is administrative but carries useful invocation context. Slight density of metadata keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the permission requirement and title-scope note, an agent has enough to call it correctly. The undocumented limit parameter is the one remaining gap.

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 50%: 'query' is documented as 'Title substring' but 'limit' has an empty description. The description's phrase 'Search note titles' reinforces that query matches titles, consistent with the schema, but it says nothing about the limit parameter or the maximum of 100. It only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Search') and resource ('note titles in Notes'), and adds a distinguishing scope constraint: it searches titles, not note contents. That cleanly separates it from notes_get, notes_create, and notes_append. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is a clear-but-not-routing 4.

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 is implied by the tool name and the title-scope note: use it to locate notes by title. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no pointer to notes_get for retrieving content, which is the natural next step an agent would need. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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