Search notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides useful details about matching semantics (AND logic) and result ordering, but omits which note fields are searched, case sensitivity, pagination, or any limit behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds meaningful information.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain return shape more thoroughly. It states 'Returns matching notes newest-first' but does not mention the fields included or any limits, leaving some ambiguity for a potentially large result set.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema; it only restates the matching logic in a different way.

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 performs a search over notes, with specific matching rules (all terms must match) and ordering (newest-first). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_note (likely single-note retrieval) and list_tags (tag listing).

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 the tool is for searching notes by query and/or tag, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like get_note or list_tags. The usage context is clear but exclusions are not mentioned.

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