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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the default ownership scope, newest-first ordering, that cross-agent access is read-only, and that results carry agent_id/agent_name of the author. It stops short of describing pagination or volume, so not a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by default behavior and the two filtering modes, then result fields. Tight overall, though the filter_agent_id detail overlaps with the schema description.

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 absent, the description usefully notes the author fields returned, and annotations cover the safety profile. Ownership defaults, filtering modes, and ordering are all addressed, so an agent has what it needs to call it correctly; only return volume/pagination is unaddressed.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description largely restates filter_agent_id and scope behavior rather than adding syntax, formats, or edge cases the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Recall notes from your notebook') and immediately defines scope behavior (own notes by default, all scopes, newest first). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, notes_search, so an agent must infer the recall-vs-search boundary. Clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It gives clear operating context: default returns own notes, filter_agent_id=<int> reads another agent's notebook, "all"/"*" reads across the workspace, and scope narrows the result set. There is no explicit when-not guidance or naming of notes_search as the alternative for keyword queries, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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