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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes results are limited to notes the user can read (permission filtering), returns up to 200 matches, and includes use-case context in results for grouping. It could mention ordering or pagination, but for a read-only search tool this is solid.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and scope, and the second efficiently packs filter semantics, a result cap, and the result context. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 read-only search tool with optional filters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it searches, what filters exist, result limits, and result context. A minor gap is that it doesn't state default behavior when no filters are provided (e.g., whether it returns all accessible notes) or define the result order/grouping format explicitly.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the key meaning of each filter: query is substring and case-insensitive, tag is restricted to an enum, and the IDs are provided as optional filters. It does not elaborate on utId/sessionId/useCaseId semantics beyond naming them, but the context of searching notes with use-case context makes the meaning reasonably inferable.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource ('Searches notes you can read') and enumerates the available filters, which distinguishes it from the list/get siblings like get_session or get_quantitative_report. The wording 'Searches notes you can read' also clarifies the access scope, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 lists all filter dimensions and notes the 200-match cap, giving clear conditions for invocation. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, but the specificity of filters and the note about grouping findings per use case imply its intended usage context enough to earn a 4.

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