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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that named notes are read in full before answering, that missing notes are reported rather than guessed at, and that the call spends the account's AI credits. These are meaningful behavioral traits that help an agent decide whether to invoke it. The cost disclosure is especially valuable for a read-only AI-powered tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, cost warning, and alternative. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct information. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool with clear routing needs.

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 simple schema, full parameter documentation, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, when not to use it, cost implications, and failure behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning by explaining that the question should contain the request in the user's own terms and that notes can be named by title or topic, with named notes read in full. It does not add details like the six-note maximum, but that is already documented in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: answer a question using the user's captured material and name the source notes. It clearly distinguishes the tool from read_note by framing this as a reasoning-over-notes operation rather than a lookup. An agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the 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?

It explicitly names the ideal use case: 'do X considering what's in my note about Y'. It also gives when-not guidance and a named alternative: use read_note for lookups or when the agent can answer from the text itself. This is close to ideal routing guidance.

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