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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are complete in one call ('There is no paging'), ordered 'newest change first', and include an enumerated field set. It omits what an empty result looks like and any cap on result size.

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?

Two compact sentences with the field list and ordering up front and the no-paging constraint immediately after; almost nothing is wasted. 'POST notes/list' is transport detail most agents don't need at call time, slightly diluting an otherwise tight 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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what each note contains and states that the full list arrives with no paging. For a two-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only empty-result behavior and any practical volume limits are missing.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, entity_id is documented in the schema and the description adds nothing further about it. However, the phrase 'one agent, group, individual or policy' effectively documents the entity_type enum values in prose, partially compensating for that gap. Baseline 3 fits.

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 names the resource (notes), the fields returned (subject, body, author, dates, pinned flag, attachment names), and the exact scope (one agent, group, individual or policy), which is specific enough to separate it from the create/get activity siblings. It stops short of naming the obvious alternative (agencybloc_create_note) explicitly, so full sibling differentiation isn't reached.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'on one agent, group, individual or policy' tells the agent the required scope but never states when to choose this over agencybloc_create_note or the get_* tools. The 'There is no paging' line is a useful usage constraint but is not framed as guidance.

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