search_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond them: the match is case-insensitive substring, not token/regex/phrase matching. It omits result ordering and how deleted notes are matched, but that is a modest gap.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence and the Args block is terse and scannable. The Args formatting is slightly heavier than necessary given the schema lists the same names, but nothing is wasted prose.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the parameters and matching semantics are covered. Missing pieces are result ordering/limits behavior and sibling differentiation, which are minor for a three-parameter search tool.

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 carries the burden and does so: it defines query, gives the limit's 1-100 range and 20 default (the schema only supplies the default, not the bounds), and explains that include_deleted controls notes marked as deleted. Only the query semantics could be richer (title vs body scope).

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?

Specific verb+resource (search note text) plus the matching algorithm in parentheses, so an agent knows this is keyword search rather than enumeration or retrieval. It does not explicitly name list_notes or get_note as the alternatives, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Searching by keyword is implicitly the reason to pick this over list_notes/get_note, and the 'plain substring match' note hints that it is not a semantic/full-text search. However there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus the siblings, nor any exclusion guidance.

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