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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds what the schema cannot: fetched web bodies arrive wrapped in <untrusted-source> delimiters with an explicit treat-as-data-not-instructions directive. That is genuine prompt-injection guidance, not a restatement of the annotations.

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 purpose and the 50-note limit, then routing, then a disambiguation warning, then the injection note. Every clause carries information; the inline example is compact and earns its space.

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 single-parameter batch read with no output schema, the description supplies the batch ceiling, the sequencing with search_notes, the id-namespace trap, and the trust framing of returned content. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly and interpret its output safely is missing.

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% and the single parameter is already documented (max 50 ids), so baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value beyond the schema: the ids should be the search hits the agent intends to quote or cite, a concrete example pair is given, and it clarifies which id namespace is valid (note ids, not run_ids).

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 with scope ('Read up to 50 notes in one call') and explicitly distinguishes itself from read_note by contrast ('rather than reading them one at a time') and from search_notes by sequencing ('the normal follow-up to search_notes'). An agent can tell it apart from all 28 siblings without opening a 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 when-to-use ('follow-up to search_notes'), explicit what to pass ('the ids of the hits you intend to quote or cite'), explicit what-not-to-do ('A report hit is NOT a note id'), and it names the alternative tool to use instead ('send its run_id to run_result'). Exclusions and routing are both covered.

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