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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only "Returns matching notes with links," which is largely redundant with the presence of an output schema. No pagination, result limits, or scope behavior is disclosed, so it adds modest value over structured fields.

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 written sentences with zero waste; the primary use case is front-loaded before the alternative. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a filtered read-only search with fully documented params, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents tag, query, and notebook precisely. The description restates the same dimensions (words, tag, notebook) without adding matching behavior, syntax, or defaults, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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) plus resource (notes) and enumerates the search dimensions (words, tag, notebook). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_artifacts, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ("when the user is looking for one of their Xenition notes") and names the alternative with its selecting condition ("To search all their content... use search_artifacts"). Both the use case and the exclusion are stated.

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