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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety needs no restating. The description does add real behavior: newest-first ordering and per-note author and timestamp. However, it claims completeness ('whole', 'read this for all of them') without disclosing that results are capped at 50 per page and that cursor paging is required, which slightly oversells what a single call returns.

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, zero filler, with the resource and ordering stated before the disambiguation from get_lead. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 three-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and included fields adequately. The one gap is that pagination and the 50-per-page cap are only in the schema, undercutting the 'read this for all of them' framing.

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 lead_id, limit and cursor are already documented, including the 50-item cap and cursor chaining. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or paging guidance beyond the schema, 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 resource ('the notes people wrote on one lead'), its ordering ('newest first'), and its payload ('whole, with who wrote each and when'). It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_lead, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either 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?

Names the alternative (get_lead) and the exact condition that selects this tool: get_lead gives 'the latest five cut short', this one gives all of them. That is an explicit routing rule rather than implied usage.

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