search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds value by specifying that matching occurs in title or content and 'search' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose matching semantics, case sensitivity, pagination, or whether results are summaries or full notes.

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 one efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource and immediately states the search scope, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter search tool, the description provides sufficient core context, and the presence of an output schema covers the return shape. Minor gaps remain around exact vs. partial matching and ordering or limits, but these are not critical for basic use.

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 only provides a bare 'query' string with no description, so the description must compensate. It defines query as a keyword and identifies the fields being searched, which adds meaning, but it leaves match-mode details and result-limit behavior undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource ('notes'), and defines the search scope ('keyword in title or content'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling CRUD tools (create_note, read_note, delete_note) by indicating a lookup operation.

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 intended use case is clear: call this tool when you need to find notes by keyword. The sibling names make the distinction obvious, and no other search alternative exists, though the description does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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