vn_search_notes

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the key behavioral detail that this is a 'natural-language query' (semantic search, not exact match) and that it searches 'across transcripts and titles', disclosing the search scope. No contradictions.

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, concise sentence of 9 words, with no wasted text. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no enums), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and scope. A minor gap is the lack of mention of the output format, but for a simple search tool returning notes, this is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (query, limit) already described clearly in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'notes', and the scope 'across transcripts and titles', distinguishing it from sibling tools like vn_list_notes which list all notes, and vn_get_note which retrieves a single 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 usage for natural-language queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vn_list_notes for simple listing or vn_get_note for direct retrieval. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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