search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions searching by text in content or tags but omits critical traits like read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, or result limits.

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 brief, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose. The second sentence provides usage context, though it is slightly awkward. No unnecessary words, but could be more precise.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose and scope. However, it does not mention whether results are ordered, limited, or how bookmarks are interleaved with notes, leaving some 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the query parameter implicitly by stating matching text in content or tags, but does not specify format, match type, or behavior for empty queries. The added value is minimal.

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 and bookmarks by matching text in content or tags, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_note, list_notes, and delete_note by focusing on search.

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 advises using the tool when the user wants to recall something, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. 'Prefer this over guessing' is vague and does not provide concrete exclusion criteria.

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