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

The annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that it is a safe read operation. The description adds the filter capability, which is a behavioral aspect but not a disclosure of side effects or constraints. It does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or any other operational details, but given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the primary action (lists idea notes) and the second adds the filtering capabilities. There is no unnecessary text, and the most important information 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?

The tool has 4 parameters, including pagination parameters (limit and cursor), but the description does not explain how pagination works or that cursor is used for pagination. There is no output schema, and the description does not mention return format or ordering. An agent would lack critical information to correctly use the tool, especially the cursor parameter, making the description incomplete for a list tool with pagination.

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?

The schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions: folderId and accountId have descriptions, while limit and cursor do not. The description reinforces the meaning of folderId and accountId by stating the tool can be filtered by account and folder, but it does not add any information about limit or cursor. Since the description partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions but not completely, a 3 is warranted.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists idea notes ('Fikir notlarını listeler') and mentions the filtering options by account and folder. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like xplanner_list_posts or xplanner_list_folders, so an agent can easily identify its purpose.

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 provides context on what the tool does and that it can be filtered, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The usage is implied from the name and the filter capabilities, but there is no direct guidance on choosing this tool versus other list tools in the sibling set.

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