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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses result ordering (best matches first), coverage boundaries (list and Archive, but not Deleted Notes), and result shape (titles and IDs only). The scope exclusion is the kind of non-obvious constraint an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary behavior, then progressively adds tag syntax, scope, return shape, and alternatives. Dense but every sentence carries actionable information; the trailing alternative pointer could arguably be merged with earlier sentences, but nothing is wasted.

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 is simple (one required parameter, output schema present), and the description covers matching semantics, ordering, scope limits, and handoffs to fetch and list_notes. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% for the single query parameter, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: partial-word and meaning-based matching, plus the tag-with-colon syntax. That goes beyond the schema's bare example, though it does not cover edge cases like quoting or malformed tag syntax.

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 and resource (find notes) and immediately characterizes the matching model: words, parts of words, and meaning with best matches first. It also names the sibling (fetch) that supplies full note text, so an agent can separate this from retrieval and listing tools without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes: use this for keyword/semantic lookup, use fetch for a note's full text, and use list_notes for dates, tags, or more text per result. It also gives a concrete usage form for tag filtering ("todo: dentist"), which removes guesswork about query syntax.

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