Search Notes (Comments)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: the requirement for Elasticsearch on self-hosted instances, and that empty searches are rejected. No contradictions.

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 three sentences, all highly relevant. The first sentence states the purpose, the second covers scope, and the third adds the critical Elasticsearch note and sibling differentiation. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 7 parameters all documented in schema, no output schema needed, the description covers the essential behavioral constraints (Elasticsearch requirement) and scope options. It is complete for effective use, though it could optionally note the return format (list of notes). Still, it suffices.

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 each parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description adds little extra meaning; it restates some constraints (e.g., search trimmed, scope default) that are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 search on issue and merge request comments, with scope options. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_gitlab by noting that search_gitlab does not search note bodies, while this tool does. This provides a precise purpose and differentiation.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use this tool (to search note bodies) and explicitly mentions when not to use it (search_gitlab for note bodies). It also warns about a critical precondition: on self-hosted GitLab, Advanced Search (Elasticsearch) must be enabled, otherwise the tool returns an error. This helps the agent avoid failure.

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