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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds that it returns matching notes with links, but since an output schema exists this is minor added value; it says nothing about result limits or ranking.

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 tight sentences, zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded before the disambiguation clause, which is exactly the right ordering.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover safety. What remains slightly under-specified is result-count behavior and whether the three filters combine as AND or OR, though this is minor for a simple search tool.

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 100%, so all three parameters (tag, query, notebook) are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'by words, tag or notebook' loosely mirrors those params but adds no format or matching semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 resource (Xenition notes), and explicitly names the scope boundaries (by words, tag or notebook). It distinguishes itself from the sibling search_artifacts by contrast, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Begins with 'Use this when the user is looking for one of their Xenition notes' and names the alternative search_artifacts with the exact condition that selects it ('to search all their content'). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both explicit.

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