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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable context: same Postgres matching as the app and REST API, approximate=true for spelling recovery, and stable refs for downstream retrieval. Goes beyond annotation-level safety info.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by behavioral context and sibling routing. No filler, though slightly packed.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Covers corpus scope, matching semantics, cursor stability, and sibling routing. The types enum values remain unexplained, a minor gap for a 4-param tool.

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 coverage is 75%, and cursor/limit/query are well-documented in the schema. The types parameter lacks a schema-level description and the description does not explain the item/note/highlight values. Baseline 3 given the schema carries most of the load.

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/paginate) and resource (corpus of saved items, notes, highlights). The sibling routing sentence distinguishes it from list_library, though several other siblings (search_saved_item, get_library_object) are not addressed.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative list_library and the condition that selects it (lifecycle filters/reading history), and references get_library_object as the follow-up for returned refs. No explicit when-not guidance beyond list_library, but the routing is clear.

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