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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: case-insensitive full-keyword matching, current-user scope, title-hit priority, and update-time ordering. It still does not cover pagination or result-shape details, but the output schema covers those.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it conveys scope, matching rule, and result ordering efficiently.

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?

With annotations and an output schema present, the description supplies the key search semantics an agent needs: scope, match rule, and ranking. Minor ambiguity remains around the transcript toggle and when to prefer this over sibling tools, but it is largely complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, limit, cursor, and transcript. The description only repeats the query's case-insensitive full-keyword semantics and adds no parameter-level guidance beyond that, matching the baseline of 3.

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 names a specific operation (keyword matching) and target set (the current user's titles, smart notes, transcripts), with ranking rules. It does not explicitly compare against notes_get or notes_list, so sibling differentiation relies on the tool name and stated scope rather than explicit text.

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 states what matching behavior occurs but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent is not told when to choose this search tool over notes_list or notes_get.

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