search_notes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what content is searched (notes, decisions, context), the ranking of results, and the structure of returned data (titles, paths, text snippets), though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidelines, and parameter details in separate sections. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool searches for, when to use it, and what it returns, though without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format structure beyond 'ranked list of matching notes with titles, paths, and text snippets'.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing example queries ('authentication approach', 'database schema decisions'), but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what's already in the structured data.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search the user's knowledge base') and resources ('notes, decisions, and context'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_note' (single retrieval) and 'search_notes_filtered' (filtered search). It explicitly lists what types of content it searches for.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need background on a topic, want to find prior decisions, or need to understand project architecture') and distinguishes it from alternatives by naming specific sibling tools in the context. It clearly defines the use case scenarios.

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