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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world semantics, so the safety bar is met without prose. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses that bodies are excluded ('no bodies') and that results are unranked, which shapes agent expectations. Pagination/return-shape detail is absent, keeping it short of a 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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the scoping rule before the alternative and the example. Dense but nearly every clause earns its place; the trailing example is useful but slightly long relative to the rest.

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 burden of describing returns, and 'note metadata (no bodies)' plus the read_many follow-up covers the essential shape. For a 6-param, zero-required listing tool this is complete enough, though it could say more about result ordering/paging.

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 every parameter including the mutual-exclusion caveats (tag vs project) is already documented in the schema. The description's example ({"project":…,"sort":"updated","limit":20}) illustrates a valid combination but adds no semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Browse note metadata (no bodies)') and immediately bounds the scope, explicitly naming the sibling it is not ('use search_notes — this endpoint does not rank'). An agent can distinguish this from search_notes and read_many 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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('when there is nothing to search for'), an explicit when-not plus the alternative ('When you DO have a question, use search_notes'), and the natural follow-up ('Follow up with read_many'). This is the full when/when-not/alternatives triad.

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