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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the useful context that only posts with notes are returned, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or default limit, though those are in the schema. With annotations doing heavy lifting, a 3 is fair.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence clarifies the return scope. Every word 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?

For a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and complete schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose and what it returns, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. A 4 is given because it doesn't explicitly state that it returns only posts with notes (though that is implied) and lacks any mention of sorting or limits beyond the schema.

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 the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get user notes attached to saved posts') and clarifies the scope by saying it returns posts that have notes. It is distinct from sibling tools like add_note, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from other get_* tools, so it misses the top score.

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?

The description implies usage (fetching notes for saved posts) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The context is clear but not prescriptive, so it sits at the implied-usage level.

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