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

The description aligns with the destructiveHint=true annotation by saying it modifies an existing note, and it adds useful behavior details: first occurrence by default and -1 replaces all. It does not describe no-match behavior or reversibility, but the annotation and output schema reduce the burden.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the key default behavior is stated immediately afterward.

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 five-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient for correct invocation. The vault_id requirement is thoroughly documented in the schema, and the destructive behavior is covered by annotations.

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 five parameters are already documented. The description reinforces occurrence semantics but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description states the specific action 'Find and replace text in an existing note,' which clearly identifies both the verb and the resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like append_to_note, write_note, and update_section without needing to open the 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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over related alternatives such as update_section or write_note, and no when-not-to-use conditions. The phrase 'existing note' implies it does not create notes, but that is the only contextual signal.

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