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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that — 'Pinned notes first' discloses the sort order. It says nothing about result limits, pagination, or completeness of the returned set, which is the remaining gap for a list tool.

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 compact fragments, resource first, then scope examples, then the ordering rule — no filler. Every clause conveys distinct information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies content scope and sort order, which is most of what matters. The only shortfall is the absence of any statement about result size or pagination behavior.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Words in the title or text'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no matching behavior, e.g. whether the query searches both title and body or how it interacts with pinning order, so 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?

The description names the resource concretely ('The couple's shared ideas and notes') and anchors it to a known surface ('the "Ideeën" page'), with illustrative examples of what an idea is (loose thoughts, measurements, songs, vendor questions). It never states an explicit listing verb, but against siblings like list-moments and list-tasks the resource itself is clearly distinguishable.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the browse-the-ideas-page tool, and the page reference gives useful context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no indication of how this relates to searching or to add-idea.

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