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 value on top: the 2-4 keyword limit, the return shape (paths, dates, matching lines), the caveat that excerpts are not the note, and the meaning of the below-`Maybe related`/`Similar in meaning` sections. It stops short of pagination or ranking-limit details.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every following sentence adds result-interpretation or parameter detail. It is dense and slightly run-on with inline markup, but there is little filler.

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 2-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, result-section semantics, the read_file caveat, and both parameters, which is what an agent needs to call and use it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must carry both parameters, and it does: query is framed as '2-4 keywords' and path is explained as narrowing to a branch. Both are given meaning beyond the bare schema, though neither is elaborated in depth.

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: 'Full-text search over your brain and the shared ones, 2-4 keywords.' It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts sibling tools like find_notes or search_mentions, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives a strong usage directive for one case ('read_file before answering') and explains how to interpret result sections. However, it never states when to choose this tool over find_notes, search_mentions, app_search, or recent_changes, so selection guidance is only implied.

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