search_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It communicates that this is a read-style search operation and that `area` restricts results to 'permanent/guidance' content. It does not clarify match semantics, result ordering, or whether search covers titles, bodies, or metadata, but the core behavior is reasonably clear.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the optional parameter behavior is delivered in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 simple search tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the search scope and the optional filter. It is incomplete mainly because the meaning of 'permanent/guidance' is unclear, and there is no guidance about what kinds of area values are valid. Still, the core invocation path is understandable.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It partially explains `area` as scoping to 'permanent/guidance' for that area, but this phrasing is ambiguous and unexplained. The required `query` parameter is never explicitly defined, only implied by the phrase 'full-text search.'

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 action and resource: 'Full-text search across the library.' This is clear and distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_note or list_permanent_notes by its search-focused framing, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need full-text search over the library—and gives limited guidance on the optional `area` parameter. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as preferring get_note for a single known note rather than searching.

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