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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real traits: the tool is cheap and indexes only metadata ('no file contents'), which tells the agent results may miss content-level matches. No pagination or result-count behavior is disclosed, but the cost/coverage signal is genuinely useful.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then trigger and examples follow; every sentence adds information. The middle sentence is dense and parenthetical-heavy, which slightly slows scanning.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, when to use it, how to phrase input, and its cost/coverage limits. Nothing an agent needs to call 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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by showing how to phrase the query ('problem statement pitch', 'invoice format'), which is actionable guidance the schema's generic 'a few words' does not provide.

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/search notes) and defines the search scope precisely: every note's name, one-line gist, project and folder. It does not name or contrast with the siblings (recall, list_memories, history), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 trigger ('Use it BEFORE you make something for them') with concrete artifact types and query examples. It lacks exclusion guidance — nothing says when recall or list_memories is the better choice instead.

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