search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full-text search' but doesn't explain how results are returned (e.g., relevance ranking, pagination), performance characteristics, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence: 'Search notes by content or title with full-text search.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying key details.

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 complexity (a search function with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details and output expectations. For a search tool, more context on result format or limitations would improve completeness, but it's not entirely inadequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how the query parameter works with full-text search or the default behavior if workspaceId is omitted. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 purpose: 'Search notes by content or title with full-text search.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (notes), and scope (content or title via full-text search). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_notes' or 'search_todos,' which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_notes' (which might list all notes without search) or 'search_todos' (for searching todos instead), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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