search_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only — does not modify any data,' warns that free-text fields should be treated as data not instructions, and explains markdown and optional enriched fields. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or authentication, but the strongest behavioral points are covered.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence contributes useful context, especially the read-only and prompt-injection warnings. The sentence about optional fields is slightly dense, but appropriate given the lack of annotations.

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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema, this description covers the essential operational details: what it searches, read-only safety, markdown behavior, and optional response fields. Pagination or result-limit details would be nice but are not critical for correct invocation.

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 has one query parameter with 0% description coverage. The description makes it inferable that query is the full-text search term matched against title and content, but it never explicitly documents the parameter format, empty-string behavior, or whether any operators are supported.

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 opens with 'Full-text searches StudyLife notes by title and content,' giving a specific verb, resource, and search scope. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_notes (listing) and create_note (creation).

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 this tool is for searching notes and is read-only, but it never explicitly states when to use search_notes versus list_notes or when full-text search would be inappropriate. Usage context is present only through the word 'searches'.

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