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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: results are ranked by semantic closeness, and each carries its published description (implying unpublished notes are excluded). It says nothing about ordering guarantees, why the default is 4, or behavior when no note is similar.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key distinguishing clause ('closest in meaning') arrives early and every word earns its place.

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, read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the results are and that descriptions are included, which compensates for the missing output schema. The one gap is the undocumented limit parameter and result-count behavior.

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 coverage is 50%: slug is documented in the schema, but limit has no description anywhere. The description does not explain what limit controls, how ranking interacts with the cap, or what happens at the maximum of 8, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the notes closest in meaning to a given note'), which implicitly separates it from get_note, latest_notes and search_notes by describing semantic proximity rather than lookup, recency or query matching. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for 'find similar content' rather than 'fetch a note'. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative such as search_notes for keyword retrieval.

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