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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by disclosing that missing paths are reported inline, which helps the agent anticipate partial-failure responses.

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, each earning its place: one for function and scope, one for use cases, and one for missing-path behavior. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Given that the annotations cover read-only idempotent behavior, the schema fully documents parameters, and an output schema exists, the description supplies the remaining decision-relevant context: batch scope, common workflows, and inline missing-path reporting. Nothing vital 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 both paths and vault_id are already documented with descriptions, examples, and conditions. The description adds little beyond reinforcing the 1-20 path limit, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') against a specific resource ('multiple notes') and adds the key distinction of batch access via '1-20 paths'. It clearly separates this from the singular get_note sibling.

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 names concrete use cases: inventorying a folder via list_folder then get_notes, and reading batch search results without N round-trips. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state 'use get_note for a single note' or list when not to use this tool.

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