search_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the search operation implied by the tool name and gives no information about matching behavior, result ordering, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 only one short sentence and is technically concise. However, 'Search' largely repeats the tool name, so the sentence adds limited new information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently information-dense.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what an analyst note is, how search behaves, and how this differs from similar search tools. The current description is too thin for an agent to reliably choose and invoke this tool over siblings.

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 both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the general 'analyst notes' context, which keeps it at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Search for analyst notes.' It is unambiguous about what the tool operates on. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling search tools such as search_reports or search_threat_intel.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling search tools. There are no alternative recommendations, exclusions, or context clues beyond the generic 'analyst notes' phrasing.

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