search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about matching semantics (substring vs. token vs. fuzzy), case sensitivity, query operator support, result limits, or ranking, all of which materially change how an agent should phrase a query.

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 short sentences with the core capability front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is slightly colloquial ("re-exploring anything") but still earns its place as a usage cue.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but the query syntax and the scope of what is searched remain unspecified.

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 0% and the single parameter (query) is undocumented in both schema and description. Mentioning "full-text search" hints that syntax may matter, but no syntax, quoting, or boolean-operator guidance is given to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Full-text search across your vault" gives a specific verb (search) and resource (vault notes) with the retrieval mode (full-text) named. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_notes or read_note, so an agent must infer why full-text search differs from 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?

"Check here before re-exploring anything" implies a use-first heuristic for discovery, which is genuine guidance. However, it never names alternatives (list_notes, read_note) or states when this tool would fail, so the when-not half is absent.

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