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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior; the description adds that the response contains the full note text in paragraphs/markdown plus practical tips. It omits auth/rate-limit or error behavior, but for a simple read this adds useful return-shape context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the retrieved artifact and followed by the only prerequisite. No filler or repetition.

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 getter with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers what is returned and where to get the required slug. It could mention the language fallback result field, though the lang parameter schema already handles that.

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%, and both slug and lang are already documented in schema; the description's slug-source note duplicates the schema's 'Note slug from migram_list_notes'. It adds no additional parameter semantics such as language fallback or slug format beyond schema.

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 exact resource ('one migram beauty note'), the content scope ('full text', 'paragraphs or markdown'), and a sibling for slug discovery. An agent can distinguish it from migram_list_notes without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explicitly directs the agent to migram_list_notes to obtain slugs, establishing a prerequisite and the correct discovery alternative. It stops short of stating exclusions or when a different note/trend tool should be used instead.

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