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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: these are internal admin-only notes (an authorization requirement) and the underlying endpoint. Pagination/sort behavior is left to the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating the resource, scope, filter option, and access restriction, followed by the endpoint path. No filler.

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 fully-optional, 7-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, access level, and the key filter. Return shape and pagination mechanics are not addressed, but the schema handles those adequately.

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 seven parameters (page, cursor, sort, per_page, suggestion_id, updated_after/before) are fully documented in the schema. The description only nods at the suggestion_id filter, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the 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?

Specific verb+resource ('List internal (admin-only) notes') with a scope qualifier ('optionally only those on one suggestion'). This clearly separates notes from the sibling list tools like uservoice_list_comments and uservoice_list_supporters, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Optionally only those on one suggestion' implies the filtering use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as list_comments or list_feedback_records, and no prerequisites stated beyond the admin-only hint.

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