search_pages

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior for edge cases (e.g., empty query). As a search tool, it is likely read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose ('Search NotePM pages') and quickly summarizes filtering capabilities.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain pagination behavior, default results, or how filters interact. For a search tool, details about result format or edge cases (e.g., no results) are missing.

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 description adds minimal value. It mentions filtering by 'keyword, note, or tag' (mapping to query, note_code, tag_name), but omits other parameters like only_title and include_archived. This provides some context but not beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 'Search NotePM pages' with filtering options (keyword, note, tag), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_page, get_page, and list_notes. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from list-based tools and could be more specific about scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_page for a single page, list_folders for navigation). The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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