Search Obsidian 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 value by revealing that results are 'ranked' and by providing the exact result shape with fields like 'score' and 'matches', which is not present in annotations or an output schema.

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 a lead sentence, a compact bullet list, and an example result object. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant filler. The front-loaded purpose makes scanning immediate.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by providing a clear output example and covering the main search parameters. It omits the 'limit' and 'response_format' parameters, but those are fully documented in the schema, so the description remains complete enough for a read-only search 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 100% and each parameter already has a description. The tool description still adds meaning by clarifying that 'query' is 'Full-text search in content and titles' and that 'tags' filters to notes with 'any of these tags', which goes slightly beyond the schema's phrasing. This enhances the agent's understanding of the search semantics.

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 opens with 'Search notes by content, title, tags, or folder' — a specific verb and resource with a clear scope. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like obsidian_list_notes (lists all) and obsidian_get_tagged_notes (tag-only search) by covering content, title, tag, and folder filters.

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 implies usage by listing the search dimensions (content, title, tags, folder) but never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternatives like obsidian_list_notes or obsidian_get_tagged_notes. No 'use this when' or exclusion criteria are given, but the general-purpose nature is clear.

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