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 only the REST endpoint mapping (GET /v1/notes) and restates the optional filters; it says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size behavior, or result ordering beyond what the schema already encodes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, with no filler. The trailing endpoint reference is mildly redundant but compact and potentially useful for API-level debugging.

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 read-only list tool with a fully described schema, this is nearly sufficient; pagination is conveyed via the cursor parameter's reference to pagination.nextLink. The absence of any statement about result shape or ordering is a minor gap, not a blocking one.

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 limit, query, cursor, entity_id, created_after and created_before are already fully documented. The description only paraphrases the filter set and adds no format or syntax detail (e.g. ISO 8601 semantics, cursor source), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List notes') plus its three filtering modes (entity scope, full-text, creation date), which lets an agent separate it from the single-record folk_get_note. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation comes mostly from the tool name rather than the text.

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 implies the use case (bulk retrieval with optional narrowing) but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance, e.g. 'use folk_get_note when you already have a note id' or that all filters are optional. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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