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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: owner scoping, exclusion of the source record, the returned field shape, and the empty-result case when the record is not yet embedded or has no neighbours.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core operation front-loaded, followed by the return shape and edge cases. It is efficient overall, though the parenthetical 'PKM Related' and stacked clauses add slight clutter.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, return shape, and empty-result behavior well. The only material omission is the semantics of the limit parameter.

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 carries the burden. It explains content_type (note|task) and object_id and implies a top-N cap, but it never explains the 'limit' parameter's default, range, or effect, leaving one of three parameters with meaning only from the bare schema.

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 ('Find the caller's own records semantically CLOSEST to a given record'), ties it to a named feature ('PKM Related'), and pins the scope (owner-scoped, excludes the record itself). An agent can tell this apart from a generic list or link tool from the description alone.

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 tells the agent how to invoke it (pass content_type and object_id) and characterizes the matching as semantic rather than keyword, which implies when it is appropriate. However, it names no alternatives (e.g. link_records or list_typed_records) and gives no explicit when-not-to-use condition beyond the empty-result caveat.

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