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

Annotations already declare a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world read; the description adds genuinely new behavior: dual truncation budget, the truncatedByBudget flag, nextOffset advancement rules, and that no drafts are ever included. It stops short of stating result ordering or rate limits, so it is strong but not complete.

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 what is returned, then the body-exclusion caveat, then truncation semantics; bold emphasis on the exclusions helps scanning. Information-dense but every sentence contributes, with only mild redundancy around the budget wording.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description supplies returned fields, pagination/truncation behavior, and draft exclusion — enough for an agent to call and iterate correctly. Missing only result ordering and explicit parameter naming.

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 0%, so the description must carry limit/offset semantics. It does explain truncation by both count and total summary characters and that nextOffset advances only by the number returned, which meaningfully clarifies pagination beyond the bare integer schema, but it never maps these to the limit/offset parameters by name.

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+resource ('公開ノートの一覧を返す') and enumerates the returned fields (ID・題・要約・targets). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling gamegene_notebook, which it names for fetching the body.

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 gamegene_notebook with an ID when the body text is needed, and warns that drafts are excluded. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling listing/search tools such as gamegene_search or gamegene_popular, so the alternative routing is partial.

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