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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds meaningful behavior — deterministic ordering and body truncation. It omits that truncation has no workaround other than per-note fetches and says nothing about pagination beyond the limit cap.

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 sentence with zero filler; the highest-value facts (ordering and body truncation) are front-loaded, and the sibling pointer is parenthetical rather than competing for attention.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description adequately characterizes the return set: a shortened-body list, ordered pinned-then-recent. It leaves the result shape (field names, whether a total count is returned) and the absence of an offset to be discovered.

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 75% and `pinned_only` is the only undocumented parameter, so the schema carries most of the meaning. The description adds sorting semantics that relate to `pinned_only`, but gives no guidance on combining `tag` and `project_id` or on how to page past the 200 cap.

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?

Identifies the resource (workspace's business notes) plus its ordering (pinned first, then most recently changed) and explicitly distinguishes the output from get_note. The listing verb itself is only implied, so it falls just short of a full verb+resource statement.

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?

Routes the agent explicitly to get_note when full bodies are needed, which is a real when-to-use condition. It does not address the other obvious alternative, search_notes, nor state when tag/project filtering should be preferred.

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