Search Notes

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavior: case-insensitive search, return of titles and snippets, and a performance warning. It does not specify result ordering or behavior for no matches, but these are minor omissions.

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 consists of two efficient sentences: the first clearly states the core functionality, and the second provides a critical caveat. No extra words, no repetition.

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 search tool with three documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope (account-wide, titles+bodies) and performance. It does not specify result ordering or snippet format, but overall completeness is good given the tool's simplicity.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool performs case-insensitive search across note titles and bodies, returning matching titles with a short snippet. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notes (which lists all notes) and read_note (which returns full note content).

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 description notes that the search checks every note and can be slow on large libraries, providing a caveat for when to use cautiously. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternative tools (e.g., folder-scoped search) for better performance.

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