search_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that results are snippets, not full bodies, and explains tag matching semantics (match_all). It also notes case-insensitivity for query. It does not mention edge cases like empty query behavior or result limits, but the main behaviors are covered.

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear opening sentence and an Args section that maps directly to each parameter. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or padding.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the essential behavior (snippet returns, parameter semantics) and directs users to get_note for full text. It does not explain what happens when both query and tags are omitted, but this is a minor gap. Overall, it is complete enough for effective use.

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 explain parameters. It does so thoroughly: query specifies text in titles and bodies with case-insensitivity, tags restrict results to notes with those tags, and match_all defines AND vs OR semantics. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 starts with 'Find notes by text and/or tags', which clearly states the tool's function and its distinguishing aspect from siblings like list_notes (which likely lists all) and get_note (which retrieves a single note). The verb 'find' and resource 'notes' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly directs users to call get_note to read a full note, implying search_notes is for discovery and snippet preview. It does not explicitly contrast with list_notes, but the snippet behavior makes the use case clear. This is strong guidance, though not exhaustive.

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