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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the bulk execution behavior (accepts note_ids) and that it returns links, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe pagination, output format details, or whether the account parameter is needed for bulk. Given annotations cover safety, 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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second notes bulk support. Both sentences earn their place. No fluff, front-loaded with the main function.

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 is relatively simple with 3 params (one required) and useful annotations. The description covers the core purpose and one important behavior (bulk). It lacks detail on return structure or account parameter, but given the simplicity and annotations, it's mostly complete. Slight gap on account parameter meaning and output format.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions note_ids for bulk support and note_id implicitly as the primary single note. The 'account' parameter is not mentioned, which is a gap. The description adds some meaning (links, media types) but doesn't fully clarify each parameter's role, especially account. Baseline is 3 given no schema coverage, but it partially compensates.

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 media blobs (images/audio/drawings) from a note with links. It distinguishes from sibling tools like keep_get_note (full note) or keep_find (search). Slight deduction because it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the verb+resource is specific.

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 clearly implies the primary use case: listing media from a specific note. It mentions bulk support with note_ids, which is a clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the sibling list shows alternatives like keep_get_note for full note retrieval, and the context is reasonably clear.

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