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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: per-user visibility scoping and the default that resolved threads are excluded unless include_resolved is set.

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 short sentences with no filler and the core resource description front-loaded. The final sentence is telegraphic but still readable and earns its place by stating the default filter.

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 an output schema present, return-value details need not be described, and the description covers scope, visibility, and default filtering adequately for a three-parameter read tool. Nothing essential to correct invocation appears 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by clarifying the default filtering semantics of include_resolved ("Without include_resolved only open threads"), which reinforces the meaning of that parameter rather than merely restating it.

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?

Describes the resource as notes on a presentation returned as threads with replies, which is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like add_comment, delete_comment, and resolve_comment. The verb is only implied by the title ("Read the notes") rather than stated in the description, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

Explains who sees what (owner sees every note, others see only their own threads) and the default filtering of resolved threads, which is useful context for deciding relevance. However, it never explicitly routes the agent away from alternatives such as get_slide or read_presentation, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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