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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral detail on top: ranking ("best matches first"), the exact fields returned, snippet generation around the hit, and the encryption-driven limitation on what can be matched. The trailing note that titles and snippets are user-authored data is a meaningful trust/instruction-injection warning.

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?

Content is front-loaded with scope and query semantics before return shape, and nearly every sentence carries information. Minor redundancy exists between "With folder, searches the user's own notes in that folder and its subfolders" and the folder parameter's own schema description, which already states the same recursion behavior.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields and the ranking/ordering behavior. Combined with the query-matching rules and the encrypted-notes caveat, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the response.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by explaining query semantics the schema only partly covers (all words must appear, quoted phrases match verbatim, case and accents ignored) and by clarifying that folder search recurses into subfolders. The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given its explicit range and default.

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 gives a specific verb (searches) plus the exact resource and scope: titles and text of the signed-in user's notes plus notes shared with them. It also names the corpus boundary that matters (end-to-end encrypted notes match on title only), which separates it from read_note and list_my_notes without needing to name those siblings.

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?

It states clearly what the tool searches and how matching behaves (every word must appear, quoted phrases match as written, case/accents ignored), which tells an agent when this is the right call. It does not explicitly say when to prefer list_my_notes browsing or read_note retrieval instead, so the routing guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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