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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the 50-item hard cap and the recency-based ordering. Those are genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond the structured fields, though the default limit of 10 is left to the schema.

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, with the core operation front-loaded and the anti-pattern caveat immediately after. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a single-optional-parameter read tool, the description covers scope, ordering, cap, and the counting caveat — nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('default 10, max 50'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's mention of the 50-item ceiling overlaps the schema's constraint rather than adding new meaning; 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 + resource + scope: 'List the user's most recently created literature notes.' The 'most recently created' ordering distinguishes it from search_literature_notes, and the resource ('literature notes') distinguishes it from list_recent_notes/drafts/media.

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?

Explicitly rules out a misuse case: 'Not for counting ... it cannot tell how many the user has,' which routes the agent toward count_literature_notes. It stops short of naming that sibling tool directly, so the exclusion is clear but the alternative is only implied.

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