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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the sorting behavior (newest first), which is real value, but says nothing about pagination defaults or the legacy bare-array vs {items, next_cursor, limit} response duality, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and ending with the ordering detail; nothing is padded. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but there is no waste.

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 two-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description could still say what a sticky-note row contains and what the default page is, since there is no output schema to carry that. It is minimally adequate but leaves the caller to rely on the schema for the response shape.

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% and both limit and cursor are documented in detail there, including the legacy bare-array behavior. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (sticky_note rows) with an ordering guarantee (newest first), which distinguishes it from sibling readers like sticky_note_due and sticky_note_dismiss. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of 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?

The description gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as sticky_note_due (which presumably filters by due date) or sticky_note_dismiss. An agent must infer the choice from sibling names alone.

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