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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still contributes real behavior: the empty-query fallback to pinned/recent notes and the implication that search results are partial compared with get_note's full note. It says nothing about result ordering or match ranking beyond that.

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 tight sentences: scope and content examples first, then the empty-query fallback and the get_note escape hatch. No filler and nothing buried.

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, zero-required-param search with annotations covering safety and a fully described schema, the description covers scope, default behavior, and the follow-up tool. Only the shape of the results (snippets, ranking, truncation) is left implicit, which is minor given there is no output schema.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in structured data, and the description's note about empty queries largely restates the query parameter's own description. It adds no syntax, tag-matching, or project_id scoping detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 workspace's business notes') and makes the resource concrete by naming example content (brand voice, policies, supplier details). It also carves out the boundary against get_note, so an agent can tell the two apart from the description alone.

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?

Gives explicit operating guidance: an empty query lists pinned and recent notes, and get_note must be used to read one note in full by note_id or exact title. It does not address when to prefer this over the sibling list_notes or when to use tag/project_id, so there is a small remaining ambiguity.

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