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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description stays consistent by stating "Read-only." It adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: default sort order (newest first), pagination continuation via cursor, and the payload-shrinking effect of fields and summary mode.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then filters, then the compaction options. Quoted parameter names keep it scannable, though the final sentence is tightly packed and borders on terse for three distinct behaviors.

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 7-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the important call-shaping behaviors: filtering, projection, paging, and summary mode. Remaining gaps (page size limits, default limit, empty-result behavior) are modest given annotations already carry the safety profile.

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?

At 43% schema coverage, the description compensates well: it explains that query searches title/body, that fields is a projection with 'id' always retained, that cursor continues from next_cursor, and what mode='summary' returns. Only limit and the folder/pinned semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 ("List the caller's personal notes") plus scope ("from their active workspace") and ordering ("newest first"). The word "personal" implicitly separates it from the sibling list_meeting_notes, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 through the optional filters and the note that mode='summary' exists for a lighter payload, which helps an agent choose a mode. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to an alternative such as list_meeting_notes for meeting-scoped notes.

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