remarkable_search

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: it mentions it searches document names first, optionally grep content, returns summaries from multiple documents, and imposes limits like max 5 documents and ~8000 chars per page. No contradiction with annotations.

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 <usecase>, <instructions>, <parameters>, and <examples> tags. It is concise, front-loading the use case and key limits, with no redundant sentences. Every sentence adds value, and the structure aids quick scanning.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, 0% schema coverage, and existence of output schema), the description is complete. It explains the return behavior (summaries from multiple documents with first page ~8000 chars), limits, parameter defaults, and examples. No gaps remain.

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 fully compensates. The <parameters> section explains each parameter's purpose: query for document name search, grep for content pattern, limit for max docs, include_ocr for handwritten content, tags for case-insensitive filtering. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 it 'Search[es] across multiple documents and return matching content,' specifying the verb (search) and resource (documents). It distinguishes from siblings like remarkable_read (single document) and remarkable_browse by emphasizing multi-document search with content matching.

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 <instructions> tag explicitly notes efficiency for finding info across the library without many tool calls. Limits (max 5 documents, first page ~8000 chars) are clearly stated. The <examples> demonstrate usage patterns, and the parameter descriptions clarify when to use grep, tags, OCR.

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