Search notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behaviour: titles are boosted, matching is fuzzy and prefix-based, and results are fused with semantic search only when embeddings exist. It stops short of stating that the operation is read-only and that results are ranked (no ordering or pagination behaviour is described), so the safety profile must still be inferred.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, and the core capability is front-loaded before the list of filters. Every clause adds information an agent can act on; nothing restates the tool name or schema.

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?

For a 6-parameter read-only search with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers matching semantics and all filter dimensions adequately. It leaves the return shape and result ordering unexplained, but those are lower-stakes for a search call whose limit is already documented in the schema.

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 100%, which sets the baseline at 3, but the description earns more by enumerating the accepted type values (note/project/daily/person/reference/area) that the schema leaves unenumerated (0 enums). It also confirms the filterable dimensions (tag, folder prefix, frontmatter status) in one sweep, though it adds no format detail beyond the schema's own examples.

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 the vault') and goes further by naming the retrieval mechanics (full-text with boosted titles, fuzzy + prefix matching, fused semantic search). It never names the obvious siblings (list_notes for unfiltered listing, related_notes for neighbour discovery), so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative is named, even though list_notes and related_notes overlap meaningfully with this tool. The only conditional in the text ('when the vault has embeddings enabled') describes internal behaviour, not when an agent should pick this tool over a sibling.

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