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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: no statement about result ordering, pagination, truncation, or the effect of an empty parameter set, which for a zero-required-param list tool is the key behavioral question.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of substance captured in other dimensions.

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 three-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema and no documented parameter semantics, the description leaves too much open — scope selection, filter combination, and return shape are all unresolved.

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% across three parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it does not: it names project and record implicitly but never explains collection_id, identifier precedence, or that all three are optional and thus likely combinable filters.

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 verb 'Reads' plus resource 'notes' identifies the operation, but the stated scope ('on a project or a record') covers only two of the three supported scopes — the schema also accepts collection_id, so the description's framing is incomplete and slightly misleading.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus add_note or resolve_note, nor on which identifier to supply, whether the identifiers are mutually exclusive, or what happens if none is given (all params are optional). The agent must infer the calling pattern from the schema alone.

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