open_notebook_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: vector mode requires an embedding model configured on the server (a likely failure mode) and results are paginated via offset=<next_offset>.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The closing pagination hint is compact, though 'offset=<next_offset>' is slightly cryptic without stating where next_offset comes from.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the read-only nature. Still, for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the include_notes/include_sources toggles and the limit parameter are meaningful controls the description never mentions.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains 'mode' well (both enum values), covers 'query' implicitly, and clarifies notebook_id and offset, but leaves 'limit', 'include_notes', and 'include_sources' — three of seven parameters, and non-obvious filtering flags — entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search sources and notes'), which cleanly separates it from get-style siblings like open_notebook_note_get and open_notebook_source_get. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, but the search-vs-fetch distinction is implicit and clear.

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?

Explains the choice between 'text' and 'vector' modes and notes the server-side prerequisite for vector, which is genuine decision support. However, it gives no guidance on when to search versus listing via open_notebook_notes, nor when to narrow with notebook_id versus searching globally.

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