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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds return field details (id/title/content_preview/category_id/created_at) and mentions supported features, which is useful and consistent with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then enriched with concrete use-case examples. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. It covers the tool's functionality, use cases, and is sufficiently complete for a read-only list operation with well-documented parameters. Slight gap: doesn't mention default pagination or sort order, but those are in schema defaults.

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% with each of the 8 parameters fully described, so baseline 3 applies. The description mentions capabilities like search and sorting but adds no new parametric semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 notes/papers from AI Note, with specific capabilities like keyword search, category filtering, pagination, and sorting. This distinguishes it from other read-oriented sibling tools by naming the exact resource (AI Note notes).

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 provides explicit use-case examples ('find my note about X', 'what did I write on Y') and indicates when to search the knowledge base. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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