search_notes

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

The annotations already declare the operation as read-only and not open-world. The description adds the useful behavioral detail of 'bounded excerpts' and restricts to 'registered-vault', but it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or other edge-case behaviors. This matches the level of additional context seen in the calibration example.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core functionality and an important constraint (bounded excerpts) without unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

While the description mentions bounded excerpts and registered-vault scope, it does not specify the return structure (e.g., fields per result), how the limit parameter behaves, or the meaning of the directory parameter. Given no output schema, more detail would be needed for full completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It explains what the query searches (filenames, content, tags, frontmatter) and implicitly refers to vault, but it fails to explain the 'limit' and 'directory' parameters, which are non-obvious and could affect search scope and result size.

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's function: searching registered-vault filenames, Markdown content, tags, and YAML frontmatter. The verb 'Search' is specific and the resource/scope is detailed, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_notes or read_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?

The description implies the tool is used for searching across vault content, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus list_notes or other retrieval tools. It provides no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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