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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default value for trashed (false), but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination, return format, or side effects. It adds minimal context beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists filters efficiently. No unnecessary words; it earns its place.

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 search tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main filters and their defaults. However, it does not mention the limit or account parameters, nor does it clarify what the output looks like (e.g., metadata only vs full content). Given that annotations provide safety context, it is adequate but not complete.

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 must compensate. It lists most parameters (query, labels, colors, pinned, archived, trashed) and clarifies that query searches title/text. It also notes the default for trashed. However, it omits limit and account, and does not explain the exact semantics of colors/labels beyond being filters. It provides partial but not complete compensation.

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?

The description clearly states the tool searches notes in Google Keep (Busca notas no Google Keep). It lists optional filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like keep_get_note (which likely retrieves a single note) and mutation tools. The verb 'Busca' (search) and resource 'notas' provide specific purpose.

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 implies usage for searching notes but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like keep_get_note or other filter-specific tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent without clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings.

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