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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), so the description's 'Read-only, owner-scoped' largely restates them. What it genuinely adds is the proposal-only semantic (never a silent decision, caller must confirm) and a sketch of the return value — important here because there is no output 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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the confirm-with-user constraint and a scope tag. Nothing is wasted, though 'PKM Phase 4b' is internal jargon that adds little for an agent.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers input, proposed output, user-confirmation behavior, and scope — enough for an agent to call it correctly. It stops short of explaining how existing entities are matched or what the response looks like structurally.

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% for the single `text` parameter, so the description must carry the meaning, and it partly does by characterizing the input as 'raw captured text (a quick note, a voice transcript).' It still says nothing about expected length, format, or whether already-structured text is acceptable input, leaving a gap for the only parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('propose how to structure' raw captured text) and even names the shape of the output (a suggested record type plus the caller's existing entities). It is clearly distinct from siblings like suggest_capabilities or planner_suggest_slots by naming its input domain (notes, voice transcripts), though it never explicitly routes the agent away from those siblings.

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 conveys when the tool fits (raw captured text that needs filing) and gives a real workflow rule: 'offer to file it' and 'confirm with the user — never a silent decision.' However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use clause and no named alternative for cases where the text is already structured or when the user wants auto-filing.

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