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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose sort order (newest first), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination, default/max result counts, auth requirements, or what a note record contains.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and the ordering front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse for the undocumented parameters, but there is no waste to trim.

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 read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter (limit) documented nowhere, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what the default result set is or how the tag filter behaves.

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 67% and the description mentions none of the three parameters. The "limit" parameter has no schema description at all, so it is undocumented in both places, and the description does not explain the tag filter or how it interacts with ordering.

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+resource ("List your notes") plus an ordering guarantee ("newest first"), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling add_note or any other listing tool, but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The usage is only implied by the word "List".

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