Search Notes

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that search returns all note fields, eliminating the need for get_note, and that count_only=true auto-paginates and returns only counts without a results array. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or pagination defaults.

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 topic sentence, usage guidance, return behavior, filter summary, and a count_only tip. Every sentence adds value, and the all-caps 'RETURNS FULL DATA' emphasizes a key behavioral point without being fluff.

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 search tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral nuances: full data return, count_only for accurate counts, and available filters. It does not detail pagination defaults or error behavior, but schema covers page/sort parameters, making it adequate.

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?

The schema describes all 8 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates filtering by date range, user, and contact, and explains count_only's purpose, but it does not add substantive new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool searches for notes with optional date and user filters, and explicitly distinguishes it from get_note by noting full data is returned and no follow-up call is needed. It also scopes usage across all contacts or specific users, differentiating it from contact-attached note retrieval tools.

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 gives explicit usage context ('Use this tool to find notes across all contacts or for specific users') and advises against calling get_note afterward, which is a clear alternative. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use get_notes_attached_to_contact for single-contact scenarios, so it lacks a full when-not-to-use set.

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