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

With no annotations, the description does carry the burden, but it does disclose that this is a write ("save") and that the response is the stored note including its id. It says nothing about duplicate titles, permission requirements, or whether an existing note is overwritten — gaps that matter for a mutation, even a simple one.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the operation front-loaded. Efficient, though the "return it with its id" clause partly restates what the output schema already covers.

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 two-parameter create tool with a full schema and an output schema, the core purpose is covered and return values need not be spelled out. What's missing is the surrounding context an agent needs to choose this tool confidently — durability, uniqueness handling, or any prerequisite — leaving it minimally adequate.

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% — both title ("Short title.") and body ("Note text.") plus length bounds are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Save a note" gives a specific verb and resource, and the second clause states what comes back (the note with its id). It is clear against the only sibling, search_notes (a read), though it never states the contrast explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this vs. search_notes or any other alternative, and no preconditions. The agent must infer that this is the write path for creating new notes.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the matching semantics (substring containment across title AND body, not just one field), which is genuinely useful behavior beyond the name; but it says nothing about result ordering, whether the limit truncates silently, or scope/permission behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the matching scope is stated before any caveat would be needed. Nothing is wasted.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and there are only two parameters. Still, for a tool with zero annotations, the description omits ordering, truncation behavior at 'limit', and any scope constraints — leaving the agent to guess at result semantics.

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 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema as case-insensitive, and the description reinforces it by tying matching to title/body. The 'limit' parameter has no description in either place, only a default of 10 and a max of 50, so the description fails to compensate for the uncovered half.

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?

Clear verb ('Find') plus resource ('notes') and even the matching scope (title or body). It does not explicitly name the sibling add_note, but the read-vs-write distinction is obvious from the verb, so an agent can differentiate without more.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Find' — the description never states when to reach for this over add_note or any other lookup path, nor any exclusions. For a two-tool sibling set where the alternative is a write, the implication is strong enough to be workable but not explicit.

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