search_notes

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: matching is case-insensitive and results can include soft-deleted notes, revealing the deletion model. It omits ordering, pagination/result-window behavior, and any read-only safety statement.

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?

Front-loaded single-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args block; every line maps to a parameter. The parentheticals (case-insensitive, defaults) are informative rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are covered. With zero annotations, however, the description should say more about result ordering, paging past the limit, and that the operation is read-only.

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, and it does: it defines query, limit (default 50), and include_deleted (default False) with the soft-delete meaning spelled out. It does not clarify pattern syntax, e.g., substring vs. token vs. wildcard matching.

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 and resource ('Search Sticky Notes') plus matching semantics ('keyword or text pattern, case-insensitive'). It is clearly distinct from list_notes in intent, though it never names that sibling to explain the difference explicitly.

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 guidance on when to prefer this over list_notes or get_note, which are adjacent siblings. The only usable cue is implicit in the word 'Search' and the presence of a query parameter; no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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