Search notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details: case-insensitive matching, plaintext-body search, skipping password-protected notes, and the default/max limit. Return format and pagination are not mentioned, but the tool is a simple search operation.

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 with no filler. Key information is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes: search scope, matching behavior, exclusions, and limit defaults.

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 low-complexity tool with only two parameters, a complete input schema, and annotations covering the read-only safety profile, this description is sufficient. An agent can correctly invoke it knowing what it searches, what it skips, and how the limit behaves.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by specifying that matching is case-insensitive and limited to plaintext bodies, which clarifies how the query parameter behaves.

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 ('search') and resource ('notes'), and further narrows scope to 'title and plaintext body'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_notes (listing) and get_note (retrieving a single note).

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 makes the use case clear: case-insensitive text search across titles and bodies, with password-protected notes skipped. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_notes or get_note or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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