notes_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('search') without mentioning whether this is read-only, has rate limits, requires authentication, returns paginated results, or what happens on errors. For a search tool with complex parameters, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 extremely concise with just four words, front-loading the core action. There's no wasted language, though this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than clarity.

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 complexity (5 parameters with nested structures, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the search capabilities, result format, error handling, or prerequisites, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so parameters like 'filterGroups', 'properties', 'sorts', 'limit', and 'after' are undocumented. The description mentions 'specific filters' which hints at 'filterGroups', but doesn't explain the other parameters, their purposes, or how they interact. It adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Search notes with specific filters' states the basic verb ('search') and resource ('notes'), but is vague about what 'specific filters' means. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'notes_list' or 'notes_search' (if that exists elsewhere), nor does it specify the scope or nature of the search beyond filtering.

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 like 'notes_list' or 'notes_get'. The description mentions 'specific filters' but doesn't explain what scenarios warrant this tool over simpler listing tools or how it relates to other search tools in the system.

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