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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: an empty query silently switches to a newest-first listing, which is a mode change an agent must know about. No pagination or result-ordering detail beyond that, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the usage trigger, then the degenerate-input behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, 100% schema coverage on both parameters, and an output schema handling return values, the description leaves nothing an agent needs unanswered. The one non-obvious behavior (empty query mode) is explicitly called out.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the meaning of an omitted query ("lists the newest pages instead, which is how to see what a vault holds") rather than just restating the schema's default. The limit parameter is left to the schema, which documents it fully.

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 ("Find pages already in the vault by words in their title or body"), which is clearly a search rather than a fetch or write. It doesn't explicitly name the nearest sibling (read_page) to contrast with, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

"Use this before writing when you are not sure whether a page for this artifact exists" gives a concrete trigger condition tied to the write_page/edit_page siblings. It also documents the zero-argument mode, though it never explicitly says when to prefer read_page instead.

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