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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: result ordering, deferred/truncated note contents flagged as detailsDeferred, omission of empty fields, and an explicit prompt-injection warning. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope and ordering first, then filtering/pagination, then the truncation contract, then the security note. No filler and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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 an 8-parameter, nested-cursor read tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape (reference plus attached items), pagination, truncation and empty-field behavior, which is close to what an agent needs. It stops short of explaining the limit/detail/includeArchived effects on the response, but nothing critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying the cursor parameter to the nextCursor value returned by the previous call, which is not derivable from the schema alone (and there is no output schema). It leaves limit, detail and includeArchived to the schema, so it does not earn a 5.

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 (read) and resource (authorized library resources: notes, links, files), plus scope (a page, authorized only) and ordering (most recently updated first). It also implicitly separates itself from siblings get_items and get_notes by declaring that full note contents live behind get_items. An agent can distinguish it from the other read tools without opening a 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?

Gives concrete filtering guidance (projectId, status, query, since) and pagination mechanics (pass nextCursor back as cursor), and routes to get_items for full note bodies. It does not state when NOT to use this tool versus e.g. find_related_resources or search_mentions, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative coverage.

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