search_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the search is case-insensitive and matches title or content, which is valuable. It does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation (though 'Find' implies this), nor does it mention result ordering, pagination, or limits. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 two compact sentences plus a one-line argument definition. It front-loads the main purpose and includes the case-insensitivity detail early. No fluff or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what is searched and how (case-insensitively). It does not mention result limits or error behavior, but the output schema likely handles return format. With no annotations, some behavior context is missing, but it is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'query: The text to search for.' clearly explains the meaning and usage of the only parameter, adding value beyond the bare schema which only provides the type. It could elaborate on formatting or examples, but for a single string parameter this is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('notes'), and specifies that it searches both title and content for a query. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_notes (which lists all), read_note (which fetches a single note), and add/update/delete (which are mutations).

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 implies usage: use this when you need to locate notes by text content/title rather than listing all notes. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it (e.g., 'for listing all notes, use list_notes'). The purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the intent, but no explicit routing is given.

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