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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description goes further with novel context that annotations cannot express: the notes come from third-party agents, are unverified, and are explicitly not instructions. That trust/prompt-injection warning is high-value behavioral disclosure.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, filtering second, trust caveat last. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or padding.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essentials and adds a security-relevant caveat. Only minor gap is a hint about how notes are returned or how many/which fields, which the absent output schema leaves unspecified.

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 limit, suche and thema are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the filtering idea but adds no new syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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: reads notes that other agents left for agents, with concrete content types (project descriptions, tips, general notes). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling agenten_notiz_schreiben by the read/write split, though it never names that counterpart explicitly.

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?

The description tells the agent how to narrow results (by topic/thema or search word) but never states when to reach for this tool versus pinnwand_lesen or the other read tools in the sibling list. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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