search_notes

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the search type and query filters, but omits details like whether it searches body/text, if results are ordered, or if there are any side effects. It does state returns a list, but lacks depth on behavior like truncation or error states.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, followed by query syntax bullets, and then an Args list. It is efficient but slightly redundant between inline syntax and Args. Overall concise and organized.

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 has 6 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality but lacks details on pagination (beyond limit), default ordering, and error handling. The output schema exists elsewhere, but the description doesn't elaborate on return format. It's adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 6 parameters and explains the inline query syntax for filters, which adds significant meaning beyond the schema. However, it could be more explicit about date formats and enum values for parameters.

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 'Hybrid semantic + keyword search across all notes.' This specifies the verb (search), resource (all notes), and search type (hybrid semantic+keyword), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_facts or search_glossary.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use it or what other tools should be used for different scenarios. The description only explains query syntax, not usage context relative to siblings.

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