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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: what content is included/excluded, that each row carries a preview, labels and a link, and that matching runs over title, body and labels. It does not disclose ordering guarantees or rate limits, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the trigger, then routing, then return behavior in a tight sequence; every sentence (inclusion/exclusion, row shape, query semantics) earns its place with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the row contents and the no-query/query behavior difference, which is exactly what an agent needs to call and interpret results correctly.

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 all six parameters, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces query semantics (recent vs. best-match) and return content but adds little syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Search the member's notes') and scopes the content precisely ('plain notes, open questions and saved prompts'). It explicitly carves itself away from the todo sibling, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use trigger ('when the member asks what they wrote, saved or noted about something...'), and names the alternative plus the condition that selects it ('never the to-do list (use connections_todo_list...instead)'). Nothing is left to inference.

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