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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of what is searched but does not disclose behavioral details such as result ordering, matching semantics, or pagination, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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?

One crisp sentence with the action front-loaded and a compact list of the searchable data types. There is no filler, and the scope is immediately visible to the agent.

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 simple single-parameter read-only search tool, the description and schema adequately support correct invocation. It does not describe the return format, but the absent output schema makes that less critical, and the readOnly annotation reassures the agent that this is a safe query operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage; 'query' is already documented as 'Search query (min 2 characters)'. The description's 'by keyword' conveniently matches the parameter intent but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the user's Framezone data'), then scopes the operation to six concrete types: tasks, projects, notes, bookmarks, books and goals. This clearly distinguishes it from the many list_* and create_* siblings without requiring an agent to open the schema.

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 phrase 'by keyword' establishes a clear context for use: an agent should call this when the user wants to find items across multiple Framezone categories using a keyword. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_tasks or list_notes for exhaustive browsing, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing guidance.

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