What changed recently

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are ordered newest-first and hubs/concepts are suppressed unless include_structural is set, which materially changes what comes back.

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 tight sentences with the core scope (what, window, ordering) front-loaded, followed by use-case framing and the structural-exclusion caveat. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 list tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and the key filtering caveat. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'limit' and 'project' parameters, which an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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 description carries the burden. It gives real meaning to 'days' (the N-day window) and 'include_structural' (which entity types are excluded), but says nothing about 'limit' or the 'project' filter, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 ('Notes modified in the last N days, newest first'), which clearly separates it from a general query tool. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling such as brain_search to route the agent away from a broader search.

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?

The description gives concrete usage contexts via example questions ('what am I working on', 'what did I do last week'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right pick. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the alternative tool for filtered/full-history queries.

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