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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are ordered with Skills first, and an absent store yields 'availability: unavailable'. It omits pagination/cursor behavior, which is only in the schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. 'An absent store returns availability: unavailable' reads slightly awkwardly as a sentence fragment, but it is information-dense rather than verbose.

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 detail is not required, and the description covers ordering, empty-store behavior, and the routing context. The one gap is any stated relationship between paging (limit/cursor) and when the listing is exhausted, which matters for a paginated list tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no semantics for agent, limit, cursor, document, or operation_id beyond what the schema already documents, nor does it explain the Skills-first ordering interaction with paging.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Lists metadata from this host's configured Notes store') and scopes it to the 'this host's configured' store, which separates it from the sibling notes.read that fetches content. The distinction from notes.read is conveyed implicitly via 'when choosing notes to read' rather than by naming the sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'when choosing notes to read' gives an implied usage condition that points toward notes.read as the follow-up, but the description never names an alternative or states any exclusion (e.g., 'use notes.read to fetch note content'). Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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