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 description's job is to add beyond that, which it does: it discloses sort order and the meaning of total and next_offset. It stops short of anything like rate limits or result-set ceilings beyond the schema's maximums.

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 dense sentences, with the resource and ordering front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence packs pagination and filtering together a bit hastily, but every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and pagination metadata, which is the main gap it needed to fill. It omits any mention of the date-based 'since' filter, a minor but real omission given five optional parameters.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns a bump because it explains pagination response fields (total as matching count, next_offset as next page) that the schema cannot convey in the absence of an output schema. The filter semantics themselves are mostly restated from the schema, and the 'since' parameter is not mentioned at all.

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 resource (published desk notes), the ordering (newest first), and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from search_notes or get_note, which is the only thing keeping it from a 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?

Filtering by topic or reader is mentioned and pagination is explained, giving an implied usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when this list should be preferred over search_notes, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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