notes_search_notes

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the search covers title, body, folder path, and account, and that scope can be limited to account/folder. However, it does not mention case sensitivity behavior, result ordering, whether the body is included in results by default, or any other operational details. The description gives a basic behavioral overview but not deep 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 concise, two clauses in a single sentence, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It wastes no words and quickly communicates the key functionality. It could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated, but it succeeds at being tightly scoped.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not sufficiently complete. It does not mention default behavior for limit, how include_body affects results, whether case_sensitive defaults to false, or how account/folder scoping behaves when both id and name are provided. The description leaves too many important operational details undocumented, making it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool with appropriate parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 8 parameters. The description does clarify that 'query' searches across title, body, folder path, and account, and that filters can be applied to account/folder. However, it does not explain the semantics of include_body, case_sensitive, limit, or the relationship between folder_id vs folder_name and account_id vs account_name. This is minimal compensation for an 8-parameter schema.

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 states a specific action ('Search') and a resource ('notes'), and clarifies the search scope ('across title, body, folder path, and account'). It clearly indicates this is a search tool rather than a listing or retrieval tool, which helps distinguish it from notes_list_notes and notes_get_note. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those sibling tools by name or exclusion criteria.

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 the tool is for keyword-based search across note content, and optional scoping to account/folder is mentioned. It does not explicitly state when to use it instead of notes_list_notes or notes_get_recent_notes, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance. The usage context is somewhat implied but not fully articulated.

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