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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the tool is 'Free' and that omitting the address returns every note in the workspace. These are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations, though it does not cover return format or pagination.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. 'Free' leads, then the core behavior, then a practical usage tip. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description covers what it does, when to call it, its cost, and its default scope. It could be more complete by hinting at the return format, since no output schema exists, but otherwise it is sufficient.

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%, so the single optional parameter is fully documented. The description reiterates that leaving out the address returns all notes, which adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already 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 (returns) and resource (notes), and clarifies the scope: notes for one record or all notes in the workspace when no address is given. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool (e.g., save_note), so it falls short of the 5-level sibling differentiation.

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 a clear usage scenario: 'Worth calling at the start of a repeat job, so a monthly report picks up whatever the last one left behind.' This is helpful context, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, missing the explicit exclusions required for a 5.

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