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 discloses the core behavior: returns only note names for notes whose content contains the term. It does not specify matching semantics such as case sensitivity, partial vs. exact matching, or whether titles are excluded from the search.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the input and the returned object (list of note names). It loses a point only because match semantics are not clarified.

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 provides only a string named 'query' with no description. The tool description adds meaning by clarifying that the query is the term searched within note content. However, it does not explain expected format, empty-string handling, or search nuances.

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 states a specific verb (Renvoie), a concrete resource (list of note names), and the selection criterion (note content contains the searched term). This clearly distinguishes it from list_notes and read_note even without naming them.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to find notes by content matching a term. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases such as 'use list_notes to get all notes' or 'use read_note to fetch a full note.'

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