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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add beyond that. It does add useful behavior: it emits a script to follow, duplicates are left for the agent/user to find by reading, and it asks once before content loss. The phrase 'anything that loses content' sits uneasily with destructiveHint=false, but the 'script to follow' framing makes it plausible these are follow-up actions rather than the tool's own writes.

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?

Front-loads the 'Dream:' identifier and intent, but the body is a single dense sentence with nested parentheticals ('duplicates you look for yourself, reading') that packs multiple ideas together. It is not bloated, but it is not efficiently structured either.

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 read-only finder with four optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it covers what is found, the routing triggers, and the confirmation caveat. Only the vague parameter mapping and the ambiguous content-loss clause leave small gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description only loosely maps 'days' and 'path' (recent notes vs. one folder) and says nothing about 'saved' or 'workspace', so it adds little beyond 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?

States a specific verb (finds) and concrete resources (broken [[links]], empty/still-template notes, long decision logs) scoped to recent notes or one folder, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_notes or recent_changes. It falls short of 5 only because the purpose is buried in tangled, run-on prose.

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?

Provides routing triggers ('dream', 'sogna', 'tidy up', 'riordina', the Dream email sentence), which helps an agent pick this tool by intent. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names alternatives (find_notes, recent_changes, list_tags), so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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