Search annotations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are grouped by book and a row's note appears on a second line prefixed with '↳ note:'. It doesn't state whether a total count is returned for paging, a minor 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?

Purpose and output format are front-loaded before the alternative and the Args block. Every sentence carries information, though the docstring-style Args section duplicates what a well-documented schema would hold, adding slight redundancy.

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?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, result grouping/format, the sibling alternative, and all four parameters. It stops short of noting pagination totals or result-size expectations, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 carries the full burden and does so completely: text is 'Substring to match anywhere', limit is '1–500, default 50', offset is 'Annotations to skip, for paging', and order_by is 'newest (default) or oldest'. All four parameters gain meaning not present in the bare 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (annotations) plus the scope of the search: 'across every annotation field — selected text, the surrounding paragraph, and the user's note body.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_notes, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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?

Names the key alternative with a selecting condition: 'Use search_notes when you only want to find your own written notes.' However, it gives no guidance relative to other annotation siblings like list_annotations, recent_annotations, or get_annotations_by_date_range, so routing is only partial.

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