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

Annotations already declare the read-only, non-destructive profile. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: newest-first ordering, excerpt inclusion, and the default-hide-archived rule with its override. It omits pagination/result-limit behavior, 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-loaded with the core purpose and scoping rules before the citation-format instructions. The [[doc:ID]] guidance is slightly verbose but is a genuinely useful output convention that earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what comes back (excerpts, ordering) and the archive/search behavior. Missing pagination or limit details, but complete enough for correct invocation.

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 includeArchived and q semantics are already documented in the schema. The description restates them in prose and never covers the workspace parameter, so it adds little beyond the structured fields – baseline 3.

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 (Lists) and resource (Napkin docs), defines what they are (quick markdown documents), and explicitly distinguishes them from the sibling surface (boards are drawing canvases). An agent can identify this tool without opening either 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?

Clearly routes the agent to napkin_docs_get for fetching a single doc and explains the filtering conditions (includeArchived, q). It does not name content-search alternatives like search_workspace, but for the doc-listing domain the usage context is clear.

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