open_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds material context beyond them: the default return payload (path plus only the matching section) versus whole_note, and the two specific failure modes with a recovery instruction. That is precisely the kind of behaviour an agent needs to plan around.

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-loaded with the core action and the read-only guarantee, then default behaviour, then routing. Slightly dense with four sibling references in one sentence, but each carries a distinct routing decision, so little is wasted.

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 values need no explanation, and the description still clarifies what the default response includes. Combined with the failure handling and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 100%, so the schema already documents id, private, and whole_note. The description restates the whole_note contrast (whole note vs matching section) but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 — 'Read one search_notes result by its id' — and immediately scopes it as read-only and item-level. An agent can distinguish it from search_notes (which produces these ids) and from read_note without opening any 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 right after search_notes') plus named alternatives with the exact condition that selects each: around_result for neighbouring sections, read_note before editing, read_file_text for known paths. It also covers the failure path — search again if the id is unknown or the folder was locked.

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