search_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only says what the tool does, not how it behaves: no mention of result format, ordering, pagination behavior, or side effects. For a search tool, an agent would benefit from knowing whether results are full note objects or IDs, and whether search is case-insensitive or respects ACLs.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and it efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary detail.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what the search results look like, which is critical for an agent integrating the tool. It also lacks any guidance on how this tool relates to sibling retrieval tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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%, so the schema already thoroughly documents both parameters, including detailed query syntax examples. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Search'), a resource ('notes in Trilium'), and the mechanism ('full-text search or attribute queries'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_note and get_note_tree, which are about retrieving specific notes rather than searching.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'notes' imply the tool is for finding notes, which gives basic context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus get_note or other retrieval tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Usage is implied, not stated.

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