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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds workflow context (a pre-create_note step) but says nothing about how many suggestions, ranking behavior, or what happens on a miss, so it adds only modest value beyond annotations.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the tool's action front-loaded and the sequencing guidance second. 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-format explanation is unnecessary, and the vault_id nuance is already fully documented in the schema. The description covers purpose and usage; only a hint about how suggestions are ranked or what a weak/no-match result means 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%, including detailed guidance for vault_id (multi-vault requirement, list_vaults fallback) and limit. The description mentions only the content description concept, adding nothing 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find the best existing folder for a new note') and adds the input basis ('based on a description of its content'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_folder (which enumerates) and create_folder (which makes new ones).

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?

Explicitly sequences the tool: 'Call before create_note when the right folder is unclear.' This gives a clear triggering condition relative to a named alternative. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., when the target folder is already known, or when list_folder/search_notes might suffice).

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