Search notes

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing that results are relevance-ranked ('best matches') and returned with full content rather than snippets, but it says nothing about result-count behavior or what happens when the query matches nothing.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the search scope and then the return shape. No filler, though the second sentence is thin relative to the room available.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by stating that matches come back ranked with full content. Combined with the fully documented input schema and readOnly annotation, an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 (query, limit) are already documented in structured form. The description only echoes the query semantics ('keyword') and adds nothing about the limit or the interaction between limit and result ranking, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Keyword search across note titles, tags and bodies'), making it immediately distinguishable from the CRUD siblings add_note/list_notes/delete_note. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the search-vs-mutate distinction is unmistakable.

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?

Keyword search implies when to use it, but the description never addresses the obvious overlap with list_notes (browse vs. query) nor states any prerequisite. Usage context is left to inference rather than made explicit.

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