search_notes

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: case-insensitive matching and splitting multi-word queries, including the reason (GoodNotes OCR word grouping). This adds useful transparency, but it omits potential limitations like lack of exact-phrase search or result ordering.

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 and front-loaded with purpose, followed by a necessary behavioral explanation. The Args section is structured and avoids redundancy. Every sentence contributes value.

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 simple one-parameter input and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects. It could mention result ordering or limits, but these are likely provided by the output schema. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

The schema provides no description for 'query' (0% coverage). The description compensates clearly, explaining that each word is matched independently and case-insensitively. This is precise and adds full semantics beyond the raw 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 explicitly states 'Search across all handwritten notes' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_notebooks or read_notebook. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 context is clear: this tool is for searching, not browsing or processing. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as 'use list_notebooks to browse'. The clear context earns a 4, but the absence of explicit when-not-to-use keeps it from a 5.

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