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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the exact response envelope ({ count, next_skip, items }), the paging contract ('pass next_skip as skip'), and the underlying endpoint GET /notes — exactly the context an agent needs to chain pages.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what the resource contains, then the return shape, then the parameter cheat-sheet. Every clause carries information; the telegraphic 'Notes: title, ...' opener is slightly terse but not wasteful.

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 correctly supplies the return envelope and pagination mechanism, and it explains the id-vs-filter branching for a 6-parameter optional-param tool. Only minor gaps remain — no mention of the default page size or sort behavior, both of which the schema covers.

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 schema already documents id, skip, sort, limit, query and filters in detail. The description restates the same facts (id for single-record read, next_skip paging, exact-match vs MongoDB-style filtering) without adding syntax or precedence rules beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description enumerates the resource's fields (title, descriptionHTML, entityType, entityId) and ends with 'GET /notes', making it unambiguous that this is a listing endpoint for notes. It is clearly distinct from siblings like plutio_list_comments or plutio_list_tasks, though it never explicitly states 'list notes' as a verb+resource phrase — that comes from the name/title.

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?

'Pass id to read one record' and 'Filter with exact-match fields or a MongoDB-style query' give operational guidance on how to use the parameters, but there is no statement of when to choose this tool over a sibling (e.g. notes vs comments) or any exclusion/precondition. Usage is implied by the schema rather than argued for.

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