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 fully covered. The description adds useful context about what the result contains (excerpts and tags, i.e., summary-level content rather than full notes), but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or truncation — relevant for a list operation.

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, zero filler: the content and returned fields come first, the routing hint to the get tool comes last. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 correctly compensates by listing the returned fields, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The only meaningful gap is the absence of any note about how many notes come back or whether the list can be paginated.

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%, including the language fallback rule and the pillar topic filter, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a small clarification by equating "topic (pillar)" with the returned topic field, but it does not explain filter behavior or the language parameter 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?

The description names the specific resource (short makeup and skin-care notes from migram), gives a concrete example of note content, and enumerates the returned fields (slug, title, topic, excerpt, tags). It also explicitly points at the sibling migram_get_note, so an agent can distinguish list-vs-read without inspecting either schema.

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 states the alternative clearly: "Read one with migram_get_note," which tells the agent to use this tool for browsing and the sibling for retrieval by slug. It stops short of saying when not to use it (e.g., versus migram_list_trends) or how the optional pillar filter selects a subset, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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