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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds which fields are matched (titles, transcripts, text content), but says nothing about ranking, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the second sentence delivering the match-scope detail. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter read-only search with a full schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose and match scope adequately. Minor gaps (result ordering, whether recordings and notes are returned together) remain but are low impact.

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 100% and both parameters are documented with defaults and bounds in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax guidance for query (e.g., multi-word or phrase handling), so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search the user's notes and recordings') plus the matching scope (titles, transcripts, text content). It is clearly distinguished from retrieval-by-id siblings like get_note, though it does not explicitly name an alternative like get_recent_notes or get_notes_by_label.

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' implies when this tool applies versus ID-based or recency-based siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. An agent must infer that keyword lookup is the trigger condition.

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