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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: a capped result count of 5, best-match-first ordering, and an empty list on no match. The 'Read-only' sentence merely restates the annotation.

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 definition is two tight sentences that lead with the core action and result behavior, followed by the usage condition. Every sentence carries weight except the trailing 'Read-only.', which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and could be dropped.

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 retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the matching semantics, the result cap and ordering, the empty-result case, and the usage trigger. Nothing material 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single query parameter and its examples. The description adds interpretive meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the matching model: results 'share a word with the search,' i.e. word-overlap matching rather than substring or fuzzy search. That is a real, non-duplicative clarification.

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 names a specific verb and resource (searches notes saved in MyClawn memory) plus the mechanism (by keyword), and states the result shape (up to 5, best match first). It is clearly the read counterpart to the sibling myclawn_notes_remember, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either 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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Use it when the user refers to something they asked you to remember.' That is clear context for selection. It stops short of naming the alternative (myclawn_notes_remember) or stating when NOT to use it, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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