find_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. 'Search' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the description does not suggest any side effects. However, it does not disclose behavior when no filters are provided (e.g., returns all notes) or any other edge cases. This is a moderate gap for a search tool, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core function, and the second adds a relevant use case. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick parsing.

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?

For a filtered search tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a relevant use case. The schema documents all parameters, so the description need not repeat them. However, it remains silent on default behavior (e.g., empty query returning all notes) and return format, which are minor gaps. A 4 reflects that the essentials are present.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by labeling 'lyrics substring/regex' (the schema only says 'substring pattern', missing the regex capability) and grouping min/max parameters into conceptual 'ranges'. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema, earning a 4.

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 states a specific verb 'Search' and a specific resource 'notes', and clearly enumerates the search dimensions (onset range, pitch range, lyrics substring/regex, phonemes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_notes, which likely retrieves notes without such filtering. The use case 'aligning with MuseScore score data' further clarifies its intent.

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 phrase 'Ideal for aligning with MuseScore score data' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., get_notes) or exclusions (when not to use it), so it stops short of a full 5. Still, the context is specific enough to guide an agent's selection.

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