Search Notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scoping of search filters but does not disclose additional behavior such as pagination, result limits, or return structure. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place and it efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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?

The tool has six parameters and no output schema, yet the description only names the filter types and does not explain the return format, pagination, or optional profileId. For a search tool with optional parameters, more detail would improve completeness, but the basic purpose is adequately conveyed.

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. It mentions four of the six parameter types (query, modelNames, deckNames, tags) but omits 'limit' and 'profileId'. It provides a high-level mapping without detailing syntax or constraints, so it partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('existing notes') and explicitly names the filtering dimensions (Anki query, note type, deck, or tag filters). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_notes, which likely retrieves notes by direct lookup, and from mutation tools.

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 context that this tool is for searching existing notes, which implies when to use it (when you need to find notes by query or filters). It does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient without being misleading.

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