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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoped resource types, but doesn't clarify whether the search covers note content or only metadata, nor any pagination/result behavior.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and scope with no filler. It earns its place, though the phrase 'authenticated workspace' is already implied by annotations.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only, idempotent search tool, the description plus output schema and annotations cover the essential call context. It could be improved by stating whether note content is searched, but it isn't a critical gap.

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, and it does indicate what the query targets (notes, folders, file metadata) but not query syntax, matching rules, or behavior at maxLength. For a single self-obvious query string, this is partial compensation.

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 'Search' and a concrete resource set: notes, folders, and file metadata, scoped to the authenticated workspace. This clearly differentiates from sibling read/list tools like list_workspace and get_note.

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?

No guidance on when to use search_workspace versus list_workspace, list_shared_with_me, or get_note. The description doesn't mention any exclusions or alternatives, so an agent gets no routing help.

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