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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the 30-day retention limit and the important side effect that the note's tasks are not re-linked after restore. It omits error behavior for expired ids and whether the note returns to its original collection, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical about retention is slightly compressed but still readable; nothing can be cut without losing information.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the retention window, the alternate list mode, and the task-relinking caveat. Remaining gaps (failure on expired notes, restore destination) are minor but real.

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 50% and the undocumented parameter is `id`; the description compensates by explaining its optionality and the entirely different behavior when it is absent, plus what the list mode returns (id, title, when). The `workspace` parameter is already richly documented in the schema.

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 ('Bring back a deleted note') and goes further by naming the two modes: restore by id, or list recently deleted notes when no id is given. It also names delete_note as the counterpart, so an agent can place it in the lifecycle without inspecting siblings.

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?

Gives a clear usage context (after a deletion, within the 30-day window, in the same Caddie) and implies the list-mode fallback when id is omitted. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_note/search_notes instead of restore, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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