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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description isn't carrying the safety burden. It still adds real value by disclosing the 'published only' filter and the strict AND-matching rule ('every word'), which are not visible in annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the key matching rule stated first; the parenthetical examples are compact and useful. Marginal clutter from the long example list, but nothing wasted.

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 simple read-only search with no output schema, the description covers matching behavior and the published-only constraint. Only minor gaps remain: default result count and what shape results take are left implicit.

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 50%: `query` is documented in the schema with an example, but `limit` is undocumented in both places. The description contributes matching semantics (AND across title/summary/sources/body) beyond the schema, but says nothing about the limit parameter.

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+resource ('Find published notes') and adds scope detail: all query words must match, and the searchable fields are enumerated. It is clearly different from get_note (single fetch) and list_notes (enumeration), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied — this is the keyword-lookup path into the notes corpus — but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over list_notes or get_note, nor any note that the query is required or that results are limited.

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