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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: AES-256-CBC encryption for content, explicit note that titles are not encrypted, a whitelist of allowed HTML tags, prohibition of scripts/iframes, and guidance against <br>&nbsp; for spacing. This enriches the agent's understanding of security and formatting constraints.

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?

The description has clear structure with headings, but it suffers from redundancy: the opening paragraph is identical to the 'When to use' section, and the 'Notes' section repeats the same HTML and encryption details. This duplication makes it longer than necessary without adding new information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly covers input requirements, security constraints, HTML whitelist, and formatting pitfalls. It does not describe the return value (e.g., created note ID), but for a create operation this is a minor gap given the depth of other contextual details.

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?

The input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description's parameter section largely mirrors the schema, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what is already structured. The encryption and HTML notes are tool-level, not parameter-specific, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with 'Create a new note,' using a specific verb and resource that clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like update_note, delete_note, and get_note. The purpose is unambiguous and precisely states the operation's scope.

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?

A dedicated 'When to use' section explicitly states the tool's purpose, though it merely repeats the primary description. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the context of creating new notes is clear from the sibling list and the create verb.

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