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

Goes beyond the readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world annotations with substantive detail: results include only the owner's private nodes, bodies are not returned, and a direct GET of a hit's url carries no connect token. The remaining 'check' field pointer to hydrate is opaque and requires cross-tool knowledge, 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then exclusions, then return shape and caveats; nearly every clause carries information. The parenthetical asides (double-backtick fragments, 'reads as in hydrate') are slightly cryptic and interrupt flow, but there is 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 usefully enumerates return fields (title, address, snippet, url), notes that bodies are absent, and flags the token caveat for downstream fetches. Missing pieces are ranking/pagination behavior (e.g. whether limit is the only paging control) for a search tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies limit (caps hits, default 20) but that default is already in the schema, and it adds nothing about how q is matched, whether operators or quotes are honored, or what counts as a hit — the central parameter remains under-specified.

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 (find), resource (the owner's own nodes), and query style with example phrasings, and explicitly contrasts scope with hydrate and list_nodes. An agent can identify the correct tool without inspecting sibling 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?

Explicitly names both exclusions with the alternative to use instead: not for reading a node with a known address (use hydrate), not for browsing everything (use list_nodes). The when-to-use condition (natural-language query about one's own notes) is clear from the examples.

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