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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context about the scope of data (browser, email, CLI) and implies a comprehensive search across sources. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a usage guideline and alternative. No extraneous details, every sentence 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?

For a 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, when to use, and how it differs from an alternative. It doesn't describe return format, but that's implied for a search tool and not critical given the read-only nature. It adequately addresses complexity and context.

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% with each parameter (query, limit, client) having clear descriptions. The description reinforces the client parameter's meaning by naming the channels, but adds little beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the tool searches 'everything the caller has said to an agent and been told' across multiple channels (browser, email, command line), which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling notes_get by explicitly contrasting with a purposefully written fact, and also implicitly separates from recall_list and recall_conversation by focusing on recall of spoken/exchanged content.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it when something was mentioned and you need to find where,' and names an alternative (notes_get) with a clear distinction. This helps the agent decide between search tools.

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