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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful ordering and pagination context ('newest first', 'a page at a time (next_cursor)'), but does not explain default notebook scoping or result shape beyond what annotations/schema cover.

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 wasted words. Ordering, pagination, and core resource are stated efficiently.

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 rich schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how paging works. The main gap is not clarifying its relationship to sibling list/search tools, but that is more a usage-guideline issue than a completeness failure.

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 limit, cursor, and notebook_id are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes cursor pagination via '(next_cursor)' and adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 clearly states the resource (words), the ordering (most recently added, newest first), and pagination. It does not distinguish this from siblings like list_words or search_words, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'most recently added' and 'newest first' – an agent can infer this is for browsing recent additions. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as list_words or search_words.

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