search-notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('search notes') without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the search encompasses (e.g., public vs. private notes). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese ('記事を検索する'), with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on search behavior, result format, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for effective agent use without additional context.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain search syntax or result format), meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 '記事を検索する' (Search notes) states the basic verb+resource but is vague about scope and differentiation. It doesn't specify what type of notes are being searched or how this differs from sibling tools like 'search-all', 'search-magazines', or 'search-users', leaving the purpose unclear beyond the generic action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple search-related siblings (e.g., 'search-all', 'search-magazines', 'search-users'), the description lacks any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering no help in tool selection.

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