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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false). Beyond that, the description discloses the exact collections traversed and the exact fields returned, including the conditional extra fields on reference notes — genuine behavioral context. It still omits pagination, ordering, or size expectations.

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. Scope is front-loaded in sentence one; the output-field inventory is compressed into a single dense clause. Nothing repeats the header or name.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly, including the conditional fields for reference notes. Missing only pagination/ordering behavior, which would matter for an unbounded 'every note' listing.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the output field set (slug, kind, title, date, status, url, page, license, checked_on, plus category/source_url for reference notes), which is useful but not a parameter concern.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (notes) with an explicit enumeration of the four scopes covered: project notes, reference notes, library pages, and the mission page. The exhaustive framing ('every readable note') cleanly separates it from the filtered sibling search_notes without needing to name it.

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?

Usage is implied by 'List every readable note' — an agent can infer this is the full-enumeration tool versus search_notes. However, it never states when to prefer search_notes or read_note, nor any volume/cost caveat that would matter at scale.

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