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

Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that search is semantic and that all vaults are included by default. It does not go further into aspects like result ordering, cost, or rate limits, which is acceptable given the annotations but not exceptional.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, default scope, and when to use. The description is front-loaded and has no filler or redundant technical detail.

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?

Even with 12 parameters, all parameters are thoroughly described in the schema, and the description supplies the key selection context and default behavior. The output schema covers return values, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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 every parameter, including mode differences, filters, and vault_id behavior. The description only restates the vault-wide default without adding meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states that the tool searches the user's personal knowledge base and finds relevant notes via semantic search. It also specifies the important default scope (all vaults), which distinguishes it from sibling note retrieval tools like get_note or get_notes.

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?

The description provides a clear trigger: 'Use when the user asks about their notes, vault, knowledge, or memory.' It also explains when to pass vault_id versus omitting it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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