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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant, though not contradictory. The description does add genuinely new behavior: the OR-of-three date fields semantics and the 'newest first' sort order. It stops short of saying anything about result volume, limits, or pagination.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope-defining condition before the read-only note and sort order. Minor waste in restating 'Read-only' which the annotations already provide.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the filter semantics, the date format, the sort order, and the safety profile. Only result-size or truncation behavior is missing, which is a minor gap for a tool of this simplicity.

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% — the single 'since' parameter has only a regex pattern and no description — so the description carries the burden. It does this well by defining the inclusive 'on or after' boundary and confirming the YYYY-MM-DD format, which is exactly what an agent needs to construct a valid value.

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 resource (notes and pages) and the precise filter condition — any of catalog date, checked_on, or reviewed_on falling on or after the given day — which tells an agent exactly what set is returned. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_notes or stale_check, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 the 'newest first' recency framing, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over list_notes or stale_check, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer the recency use case but must guess at the boundary with sibling tools.

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