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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral constraint beyond annotations: results are limited to *finished* documents, implying processing or failed documents are excluded, and it discloses that a full link is a valid input. It says nothing about result caps or ordering.

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 with zero filler, and the primary lookup behavior is front-loaded before the sibling-alternative note.

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 small two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what input shapes are accepted, and what to use instead for topical search. It stops short of describing the shape of the result list (fields returned, pagination), which an agent would have to discover by calling it.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does clarify that `keyword` accepts either a name fragment or a pasted uNotes document link, which is genuinely non-obvious. However, `excludeDocumentId` is never mentioned, and the description does not say why one would exclude a document.

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 and resource ("look up finished documents") and names two accepted input modes: a name fragment or a pasted uNotes link. It also explicitly contrasts itself with search_library, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: for topic search across the library, use search_library instead. It does not address the other near neighbors (list_my_documents, get_document, find_similar_documents), so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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