search

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful hint about matching modes (text, meaning, exact string), but does not disclose behaviors like hybrid default, result ordering, or the effect of case_sensitive.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it is immediately scannable.

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 read-only search tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough for a simple query but omits return-value expectations and advanced filter semantics. It is adequate, not comprehensive.

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 adds some meaning around query/mode through 'text, meaning, or exact string', but says nothing about tags, folder, top_k, or case_sensitive, leaving most parameters to be interpreted from their names and defaults alone.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Find notes') and clarifies the three matching strategies: text, meaning, and exact string. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly position it against siblings like get_note or list_notes.

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 phrasing implies this is the tool for content-based lookup, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over list_notes, get_note, or other retrieval tools. There are no exclusion statements or alternative routing hints.

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