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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and closed-world semantics, so the description's main value is the pagination invariant that filters must remain the same across pages, which nothing in the structured fields states. Current-user scoping is also useful and not visible in the schema.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the ordering and scope front-loaded, followed by the filter families and the pagination rule. Every clause carries information, though the pagination clause is slightly compressed.

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?

The output schema covers the return-value shape and the annotation set covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to convey what is listed and how filtering and paging behave, which it does. Minor gaps remain, such as the absence of guidance on how filters interact.

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 each parameter carries its own description (limit, scope, since, cursor, folder, folder_id), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only summarizes the filter families and adds no format or interaction detail beyond that.

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 gives a concrete verb plus resource (列出/笔记摘要), adds ordering (按新建顺序) and scope (当前用户的), which distinguishes it from the single-item sibling notes_get. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the 'search' sibling, e.g. by saying keyword lookup belongs there.

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?

It states the supported filters (收藏、文件夹、创建时间), so the intended browsing use case is implied, but it never says when to prefer notes_get or search instead. An agent must infer the division of labor from sibling names alone.

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