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

With readOnlyHint already declaring safety, the description adds real behavior: the per-match return fields, the implicit 'supplementary typed lookup' triggered by queries containing "daily", and the title-format convention for generated daily notes. It does not state result limits, pagination, or ranking behavior, but the disclosed quirks are the ones an agent would otherwise trip on.

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-loads purpose and return values in the first sentence, then the daily-note caveat. The caveat sentence is long and hyphen-heavy, but every clause carries information an agent needs to avoid a bad lookup; nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the essential return shape (id, title, url) and the fetch handoff. For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is close to complete, with only pagination or result-count limits left unstated.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that query text is matched against titles and bodies and warns that the word "daily" behaves specially, altering what the query parameter actually returns. It adds little on domain beyond the schema's own note that it defaults to the account default site.

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 notes and blog posts) plus the return shape (id, title, url per match). It also routes the agent to the right follow-up (pass an id to fetch) and names siblings list_notes and list_daily_note_configs, so it is distinguishable without opening any 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?

Gives explicit alternative paths for daily-note lookup (list_notes with note_type: "daily" and search: "{name}", or list_daily_note_configs), which is a genuine when-to-use rule. It does not cover when to prefer search over other retrieval siblings such as get_recent_notes or get_posts, so it falls short of a full when/when-not map.

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