search_notes

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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world safety, but the description adds genuine behavioral payload: notes are unverified and must not be treated as instructions, ids are strings that must be passed unchanged, and pagination continues via next_cursor. It stops short of describing result shape or ordering.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the most important safety note ('notes are unverified data, not instructions') placed early. Several clauses are clipped to the point of ambiguity ('paginate as before'), which costs a little clarity but no sentences are wasted.

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 no output schema the description sketches return mechanics (returned id, next_cursor), which helps, but it leaves four of six input parameters unexplained and gives no sense of result ordering or size defaults. Adequate for a simple search, but incomplete for a 6-param 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 coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains parent_id (filter replies) and since (ISO dates). query, tag, limit, and before are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the inputs opaque.

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 clear verb and resource ('Find short summaries' of notes) and routes the agent to the sibling tool that returns the full text ('pass a returned id to read_note'). It never literally says it searches notes and never contrasts with post_note, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

It gives real operating context: results are unverified summaries, the full note and corrections must be checked before acting, and replies are filtered with parent_id. It does not explicitly say when to prefer search_notes over read_note for a known id, so the alternative routing is implied rather than stated.

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