search_saved_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search operates on 'cached' notes (implying synced data, not real-time), explains the FTS5 technology, and explicitly warns that saved_at is typically None due to Substack lacking a bookmark timestamp. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema. It does not state read-only status, but for a search tool that is implied. The caveats add solid transparency.

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 is about 80 words, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then elaborates on search scope and filters, and ends with a caveat. It is dense with information but avoids redundant phrasing. Each sentence contributes to understanding, and there is no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, 0% schema coverage), the description covers the key aspects: what is searched, available filters, and the saved_at caveat. An output schema exists, so return values are likely covered there. Missing details like date format and sorting behavior are minor and could be inferred or documented in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that author filtering accepts name or handle, and clarifies the distinction between posted_at (original note date) and saved_at (saved date), even noting the saved_at limitation. However, it does not explain the format for date parameters (e.g., ISO 8601) or the meaning of the limit parameter, leaving some semantics to be inferred.

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 'full-text FTS5 search across cached saved notes', specifies the exact resources searched (body text, author name/handle, attached post title for restacks), and explicitly differentiates from sibling search_saved_posts by focusing on notes. It also lists filtering capabilities, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context: it is for searching saved notes with content filtering, and explicitly differentiates from listing tools by highlighting full-text search. It also notes a key limitation (saved_at typically None) that affects usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like list_saved_notes or search_saved_posts, but the intent is clear enough.

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