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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact — results are lightweight note references requiring a follow-up get_note — but says nothing about limits, matching scope, or empty-result behavior.

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?

A single sentence with the usage trigger front-loaded and the follow-up action second; every clause earns its place with no 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 read-only search tool with a complete schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the definition covers the essential decision (search here, fetch content via get_note). It is close to complete; only the fact that matching spans titles and content, or the tag/person filter affordances, are left entirely to the schema.

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% with all four parameters documented (limit, query, tagNames, personRef), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or combination semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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 (search) and resource (private notes), and explicitly contrasts with get_note for full content, so the agent can distinguish it from that sibling. It does not hint at the available filter dimensions (query, tags, person), which would have sharpened the purpose further.

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 a clear condition for use ('when you need to search private notes') and names the follow-up alternative ('get_note with its returned note reference'). It stops short of explicit when-not guidance, e.g. that public content belongs to search_public_product_content.

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