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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavior beyond them: case-insensitive matching, newest-first ordering, a short snippet around the match, and ANY-of-label semantics. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, so not a full 5.

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 core purpose and usage, then narrowing filters, then pagination, then the alternative. Every sentence carries information, though it runs somewhat long across five sentences.

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 7-param search tool with no output schema, the description covers matching semantics, result ordering, snippet return, filter narrowing, and pagination, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 by explaining that labels match ANY of the given labels case-insensitively, that date params are narrowing bounds, and that limit/offset drive pagination. This is additive context rather than restatement.

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 (search) and resource (the user's Contextli voice notes/transcriptions) with scope (keyword or phrase, case-insensitive, across note text). It clearly distinguishes itself from contextli_get_notes (browsing) and contextli_filter_notes_by_label, so an agent can pick it without opening other schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when the user is looking for notes about a topic, person, or phrase they remember saying') and names the alternative for the no-keyword case ('For browsing without a keyword, use contextli_get_notes'). It also routes the agent to contextli_list_contexts to obtain valid context ids.

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