search_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that body search is slower, refers to a 'capped scope', and clarifies the output fields (total and notes). This adds useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'search' statement.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then clarify the output shape. No redundant information; every clause serves a purpose.

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?

The description is largely complete for a search tool: it explains the two modes, output structure, and performance implications. However, the phrase 'capped scope' is ambiguous, and since there's no output schema, the return format is only briefly described, leaving minor gaps.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, but the description adds meaning by explaining the effect of search_body (slower, capped scope) and how limit relates to the returned notes array. This goes beyond the schema's raw parameter descriptions.

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 the tool searches notes by title, with an optional body mode. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying search semantics (title vs body) and output structure, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for searching notes when you need to find specific content, but it does not explicitly compare with list_notes or other alternatives. It provides a condition (search_body=true) and performance caveat, but no when-not-to-use guidance.

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