around_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description restates read-only (mildly redundant). It adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: private-folder same-day notes are silently excluded by default, and enabling private requires an explicit in-chat request from the person. It does not cover cost/rate behavior, but the privacy filtering is the trait an agent most needs.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is returned, the alternative tool, and the privacy gate. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly dense with subordinate clauses, but no sentence is expendable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description still notes 'Returns JSON'. With only two parameters, full schema coverage, and clear annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and in the right sequence.

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 both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds meaning the schema does not: the privacy flag's activation involves a consent condition tied to the conversation, not just a boolean toggle, which changes how and when the agent should set it.

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 ('Get the context around a search_notes result') and immediately enumerates the two things returned: adjacent sections in the same note and other notes from the same day. This distinguishes it cleanly from read_note and open_result without requiring the agent to open either 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?

Explicit sequencing ('Use it after open_result when the matching section alone is not enough') plus a named alternative with its own trigger ('use open_result with whole_note=true when you need the full note instead'). The private=true condition is also gated with a clear precondition ('needs the person's ask in this chat'), so there is nothing left to infer.

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