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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's real value is the caveat that results are a bounded window rather than a complete export and that only selected records surface in a conversation. That is genuinely useful extra context about result truncation. It stops short of explaining how limit/offset bound the window or what a truncated result looks like.

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 no filler, and the scope statement ('linked user's notes and resource metadata') is front-loaded. Slightly more could earn its place by covering parameters, but nothing present is wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, zero schema description coverage, four undocumented parameters, and several same-intent siblings, the description needs to carry more weight than it does. It conveys the bounded-result caveat but omits any parameter semantics or sibling differentiation, so an agent cannot reliably invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides names, types, and an enum but no meaning for any of the four parameters. The description does not mention query, kind, limit, or offset at all, leaving the agent to guess at matching semantics, the note/resource kind split, and pagination behavior.

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: searches the linked user's notes and resource metadata, which is clearer than the title alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as search_notes, search_resources, or search, so an agent cannot tell why it would pick this combined search over those.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named even though search_notes, search_resources, and search all appear to compete for the same intent. The only directional signal is the vague note that results are 'used in a conversation,' which does not constitute routing guidance.

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