Find notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: truncation semantics ("whether the list was cut"), the default cap of 100, and the advisory to narrow queries instead of raising limits. It stops short of describing error or empty-result behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the key ID-type distinction, then the return contract, then usage advice — a sensible priority order with no filler. It is dense (parentheticals and a JSON-shaped return sketch in one paragraph) but every clause carries 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so precisely: an ids array, a total, and a truncated flag. Combined with the sibling routing and the limit guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and chain it into notes_info.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description earns above baseline by framing `limit` in operational terms (default 100, results may be truncated) and by advising query narrowing as the preferred alternative to raising the limit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Searches notes with Anki search syntax") and immediately disambiguates the returned entity: "returns NOTE IDs (use find_cards for card IDs)". That contrast with a real sibling makes the tool's identity unmistakable without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use find_cards when you want card IDs, pass results to notes_info for details, and prefer narrowing the query over raising the limit. Both the downstream alternative and a usage constraint are spelled out rather than implied.

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