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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results come back newest-first and are scoped to the authenticated user, and each note is annotated with its related entity. It does not discuss pagination limits or the absence of results, keeping it short of a 5.

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, and the highest-value information (resource, ordering, returned fields) is front-loaded before the scoping instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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 content and it does so (notes with their associated company/pitch/person, newest first). Pagination defaults live in the schema. What remains thin is error/empty-result behavior and whether other filters exist, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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%: page, company, and per_page are each documented in the schema, including defaults and max. The description restates the company scoping ('company or pitch') without adding syntax or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 authenticated user's notes'), plus the sort order ('newest first') and the shape of each result ('each with the company, pitch, or person it is about'). An agent can distinguish this from list_updates, list_documents, and other list_* siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for the company filter and even names the siblings that produce valid slugs (list_companies / list_pitches), which is genuinely helpful routing. It stops short of saying when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search or list_updates, so it is not a full 5.

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