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

Goes well past the annotations: discloses ranking behavior (exact phrase first), the return shape (matching slugs with line snippets), abbreviation expansion behavior, and a privacy note about query logging. That is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint or the schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with scope then query semantics then return format. The usage-log sentence is the weakest but still earns its place as a privacy disclosure; the 'SI / RSI' aside is slightly disruptive to flow.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, everything needed is present: what is searched, how the query is interpreted, what comes back, and the privacy posture. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it largely does: case-insensitivity, all-words-must-match across title/tags/body, stemming, and phrase preference. The only omission is the 200-character limit and minLength, which remain schema-only.

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?

Specific verb (search) plus an explicit scope enumeration (all notes, reference notes, library pages, mission page), which is enough to separate it from read_note and list_notes. It stops short of naming those siblings, but the scope makes the boundary inferable.

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?

Clear usage context: keyword lookup with AND-across-words semantics, light stemming, and phrase-boosted ranking, so an agent knows what kind of query will succeed. No explicit exclusions or 'use X instead when…' routing against read_note/ask is given.

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