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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses visibility scope (own notes plus shared folders), ordering (most recent first), and the exact summary shape returned {id, title, folderId, updatedAt}. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or clarify pagination/truncation behavior beyond the limit cap.

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 short sentences: the first front-loads scope and ordering, the second gives return shape, the follow-up tool, and the use case. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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-listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and return fields, which is everything an agent needs to call it and interpret the result. Nothing material is missing.

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% and the single `limit` parameter is fully documented in the schema (default 10, max 50), so the description need not repeat it. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for a one-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with scope and ordering: 'Últimas notas modificadas (propias y de carpetas compartidas), la más reciente primero'. This is far more specific than a bare name restatement. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like notes_list or notes_search, though it does route to notes_get for reading a single note.

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?

Provides a concrete usage scenario ('¿en qué estaba trabajando?') and a clear next-step alternative ('usa notes_get para leer una'), which tells the agent when to switch tools. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., when to prefer notes_search or notes_list instead), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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