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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds two useful traits not in the annotations: results are truncated previews, and the project must be 'granted' (an authorization precondition). It omits pagination behavior despite the cursor parameter.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the filter and usage notes. Every clause adds information an agent cannot get from the structured fields alone.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the read-only safety profile is fully covered by annotations. The description is nearly complete for a filtered list tool, with pagination via limit/cursor as the one meaningful omission.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only loosely covers two of four: project scoping ('in a granted project') and the update filter ('filtered by last update'). The limit and cursor parameters, and the existence of pagination, are never explained anywhere.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List note previews in a granted project') and adds scope plus an optional filter. It differentiates itself from clean_notes_get_note by signaling that results are shortened previews rather than full note bodies, so an agent can choose correctly 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?

'Use to find a note or see what changed recently' gives clear when-to-use context for two concrete scenarios. It does not name an explicit alternative (e.g. get_note for full content) or state exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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