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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is disclosing that the result is a heterogeneous mix of three content types, which annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, limits, or how empty results behave.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the scope ('shared half'), and the content enumeration is compact. The 'Returns:' line largely restates the first sentence's content list, which is mild redundancy but not harmful.

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 a one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and content types adequately. It leaves gaps on result shape, ordering, and whether private items are excluded, which matters because no output schema exists to answer those questions.

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% and the single 'campaign' parameter is fully documented as accepting a slug or id, so the schema carries the load. The description only gestures at scoping with 'at this table' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 names the specific resources aggregated (session notes, public pins, saved wiki versions) and scopes them to 'this table' (the campaign). 'The shared half of My Notes' implies a contrast with the private counterpart, though it never names a sibling tool outright.

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 shared half of My Notes' implies when to use it versus a private-notes listing, but the agent has to infer that from the word 'shared' rather than being told. No explicit alternative (list_my_notes, list_my_private_pins, get_my_note_history) or exclusion condition is given.

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