search_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing about behavior: no mention of match semantics (substring vs tokenized), case sensitivity, result ordering, or result limits/pagination. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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 phrase with no wasted words; the core action leads. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, so it scores well on conciseness but not perfectly.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral context itself; it omits return format, ordering, and result limits. For a search tool intended to be picked over list_notes, this is incomplete.

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%, so both query and parentId are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'by content', so it does not rise above the baseline.

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 (search) and resource (notes) with the matched field (content), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling list_notes, which an agent could easily confuse with a broad content search.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus list_notes or get_note, and no mention of whether it is for full-text lookup versus exact matching. The agent is left to infer the scenario entirely.

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