search_notes

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not explain output format (e.g., returns note IDs or full notes), pagination, performance implications, or error handling, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences that immediately state the action, syntax, and examples. No wasted words; information density is high and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's search complexity and lack of output schema, the description falls short. Missing details on return structure, behavior when syntax is invalid, and how results are ordered. Sibling context hints at other notes-related tools but no cross-referencing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by illustrating valid query syntax with examples, but does not clarify the default limit value (100) or usage of collection_path, which the schema already describes.

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 for notes using Anki search syntax and provides concrete examples (e.g., deck:MyDeck, tag:important, front:*python*), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_note which retrieves a single known note.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_note or list_notes. The description does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where search is preferred over direct navigation.

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