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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a non-mutating suggestion tool ('Suggest', 'Returns a path string'), but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what happens if no path can be suggested, or whether it performs any validation or folder creation. The behavior is predictable from the name and description, but not fully detailed.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return value. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the output schema, and full parameter schemas, the description is nearly complete. It explains when to use it, what it returns, and how to use it with upsert_note. It could explicitly mention that it does not create or modify notes, but this is implied by 'suggest' and the return value description, so the gap is minor.

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%, and the schema already explains each parameter's meaning and defaults. The tool description adds context about the overall purpose but doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the schema. Since the schema handles parameter semantics, the baseline of 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 clearly states a specific action ('Suggest a note path') with a specific resource ('based on note kind and the OpenAkashic folder rules'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_note or upsert_note by explicitly positioning itself as a helper that returns a path for use with upsert_note.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool when unsure what path to pass to upsert_note.' This tells the agent the primary use case. It doesn't give exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear and directly ties to the sibling tool upsert_note.

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