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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the default archived-exclusion behavior and notes that each returned note carries its 'links' relationships, but says nothing about ordering, limits or pagination for a list operation.

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 clauses lead with the default scope before introducing the archived switch and the filters, which is the right order for an agent scanning the definition. The final sentence is dense and switches subject (from filtering to the 'links' field and back to filters), costing a little clarity.

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 four optional filters, a fully documented schema and strong annotations, the description covers the one behavior the schema cannot convey (archive exclusion by default) and hints at the returned relationship data. Ordering and pagination are the only meaningful gaps, and no output schema exists to cover them.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema, including the hierarchy note for project_id ('ou à ses tâches') and goal_id. The description largely restates these semantics rather than adding new ones, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Lister les notes') and immediately states the default scope ('hors archives'), so an agent knows this is a filtered note listing rather than a mutation or a single-note fetch. It stops short of naming any sibling tool (e.g. a get-note or inbox tool) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

It gives concrete conditions: by default archives are excluded, and passing 'archived' returns only archived notes, plus the rule that project_id/goal_id/task_id restrict the result to linked notes. What is missing is how the filters combine when several are supplied, and no alternative tool is pointed to.

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