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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by disclosing the returned shape — title, project (or 'everything'), category, author, timestamp, and truncated text — plus the fact that ids are the payload other tools require. It does not discuss ordering or limits, so it falls short of 5.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the resource and its ids, then the return fields, then the disambiguation from fenbs_get_context. No sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields each note exposes. Combined with the clear routing against fenbs_get_context and the named downstream consumers, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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, and the description largely restates them ('full: true gives the whole text'). It adds only marginal meaning by clarifying that 'everything' refers to notes that apply to everything, which the schema hints at but does not spell out. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('The context notes on this board with their ids') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling tools that consume those ids (fenbs_update_context_note, fenbs_delete_context_note) and from the reading-oriented fenbs_get_context. An agent can place this tool 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'fenbs_get_context is what to read before working; this is how to find a note to change.' It also names the downstream tools that need the returned ids, giving both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else.

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