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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive safety profile, so the description correctly focuses on extra behavior: newest-first ordering, exclusion of archived drafts, and compact summaries without full HTML. The archived-exclusion sits in mild tension with the ARCHIVED value in the status enum, which is worth clarifying but is not an annotation contradiction.

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 tight sentences: scope and ordering first, then exclusions and return-shape caveats. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the description still adds the useful note that summaries omit HTML. With full annotation and schema coverage plus only three simple parameters, the definition is nearly complete, missing only a hint about the archived-filter interaction.

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%, so limit, query, and status are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource scoped to the authenticated user, plus ordering (newest first). It is clearly distinguishable from get_draft (single) and list_notes (different resource), though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 only implied: the tool lists the current user's drafts and nothing more. There is no explicit when-to-use, no guidance on choosing this over get_draft for a single draft, and no mention of pagination strategy given the absence of a cursor parameter.

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