search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'requires token', indicating an authentication need, which is useful context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on other behavioral traits, such as whether the search is case-sensitive, how results are paginated or sorted, what metadata is included, or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in a single sentence: 'Search for notes and return results with metadata'. The additional note '(requires token)' is brief and relevant. There's no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes into a distinct part.

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 complexity of a search operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions authentication but omits critical details like the format of returned metadata, error handling, or search scope. For a tool that returns results, the lack of output schema means the description should compensate by explaining return values, which it doesn't do, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('term' and 'tag'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how the parameters interact (e.g., if 'tag' narrows the search) or providing examples. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameters without extra value from the description.

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's purpose: 'Search for notes and return results with metadata'. It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('notes'), and output ('results with metadata'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't differentiate this search tool from potential alternatives among its siblings, such as 'get_note' or 'get_tags', which might also retrieve note-related data.

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 provides minimal guidance: it mentions 'requires token', which hints at an authentication prerequisite but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_note' (which fetches a single note) or 'get_tags' (which retrieves tags). There's no explicit advice on when to use it, when not to, or what makes it distinct from sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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