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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces this and adds the non-trivial detail that results are deterministic, plus the result-count bounds. It does not mention what each related note record contains or whether results are ranked.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: what it does, its behavioral profile, then parameter facts. No filler or restated title.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, determinism and both parameters. Only the shape of returned related notes (e.g., slug/title summaries) is left unstated, a minor gap given the simple contract.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load: it explains slug provenance (current or old list_notes slug) and adds the default of 8 for limit, which the schema does not provide (the schema only supplies the 1–25 bounds). This is solid compensation for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Notes related to one public note') and then enumerates the relevance dimensions (catalog category, tags, shared title/slug words), which plainly separates it from siblings like read_note, list_notes and search_notes.

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 establishes the precondition clearly by stating the slug is a list_notes slug or old slug, which tells the agent it must first obtain a note reference. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as search_notes or atlas, so it falls short of a 5.

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