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 adds non-obvious behavioral context: this endpoint is restricted to the @-mention picker and returns selectable resources with space and folder subtitles. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but those are not clearly needed here.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loads the critical usage restriction before naming the alternative. The final sentence repeating the query parameter is redundant with the schema, slightly reducing efficiency, but overall it remains tight.

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?

Given the low complexity, rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description contains everything an agent needs. It explains the specialized use case, points assistants to the correct alternative, and does not need to describe return values because the output schema exists.

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%, and the schema already documents that the query string may be empty to return recently edited notes. The description repeats this same information, adding no extra syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema. A 3 is the baseline when the schema already carries parameter semantics.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: returns notes matching a typeahead query as selectable resources. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling `search` tool by explicitly telling assistants to use `search` instead. This is clear enough to identify the tool without opening the 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use context (only the ChatGPT composer's @-mention picker) and an explicit alternative for assistants (`search`). The exclusion is unambiguous, leaving no inference needed about when this tool is appropriate.

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