Search notes

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

Description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint: true) and adds behavioral detail: returns snippets. It does not describe case sensitivity, pagination defaults, or result structure beyond snippets, but is consistent and non-contradictory.

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?

Two sentences, highly front-loaded. No filler words. Every part adds information: action, parameters, output. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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 8 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers core functionality. It could mention default limit or result fields, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by grouping parameters (query+regex, tag+path_glob+folder) and explaining the overall search mechanism, which provides context beyond individual schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'search' and resource 'vault' with explicit methods (text/regex, filters, tag, path glob). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_notes' and 'get_note_info' by focusing on search with optional filters.

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?

Description specifies when to use: for searching by text or regex with optional filters. It implies usage for retrieval rather than listing or editing, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or mention exclusions like performance considerations.

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