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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds filter scoping and the underlying REST endpoint, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default result counts, or what a call returns when there are no notes.

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 core list-and-filter capability front-loaded. The trailing 'Folk REST: GET /v1/notes' is mildly redundant but does give an implementation anchor; nothing is verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for return shape, and it does not describe the response envelope, pagination.nextLink, or default page size (only the cursor param hints at paging). Adequate but with clear gaps for a 6-param list tool.

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 the 6 parameters (limit, query, cursor, entity_id, created_after, created_before) are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the filter categories without adding format, default, or boundary detail beyond what the schema already provides — baseline 3.

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 (List) and resource (notes) and enumerates the available scoping dimensions (entity, full text, creation date). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like folk_get_note or folk_create_note, though the name and verb make the split reasonably obvious.

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 implied by the phrase 'optionally scoped to...' which signals the tool is the broad retrieval path, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or naming of an alternative (e.g., folk_get_note for a single note). An agent can infer intent but is given no routing rules.

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