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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them with useful behavior: case-insensitive matching, alias expansion for SI/RSI, the return shape (slugs plus line snippets), and the privacy disclosure that queries are not stored. It does not state result limits or pagination, which keeps it short of a 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, return format, alias expansion, and data-handling. Scope and return value are front-loaded with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes the return value as slugs with line snippets, and it documents the alias quirk and privacy behavior. The only omission is result-size or truncation behavior for a corpus-wide search, which an agent might want before calling.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for the single query parameter, and it does add real meaning: matching is case-insensitive and the abbreviations SI/RSI are expanded to self-improvement/superintelligence. It omits the schema's 200-character cap and 1-character minimum, so it is not fully compensating.

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 (text search) and enumerates the exact corpus searched: notes, reference notes, library pages, and the mission page. An agent can immediately tell this apart from list_notes (enumerate) and read_note (fetch one by slug) 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?

The scope implies when to use it (free-text lookup rather than enumerating or reading by slug), but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like list_notes, read_note, or ask. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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