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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context on top. It adds result ordering, the returned field set, recursion behavior for subfolders, and a useful caveat that titles and folder names are user-authored data. Return format/pagination is not covered, but no output schema exists either.

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 dense sentences, with the primary behavior and field list front-loaded before the folder variant. The folder behavior is restated in both sentences, slightly redundant 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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately enumerates returned fields and ordering, and it covers the folder-scoped variant. An agent still lacks explicit guidance on pagination/truncation beyond limit, which keeps it from a 5.

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 both parameters (limit, folder) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces folder semantics and adds the sort order, but says nothing about limit behavior such as truncation when the cap is hit. 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 and resource (lists notes), explicit scope (owned by the signed-in user), explicit ordering (most recently edited first), and an enumerated set of returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_note or list_my_boards.

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?

Explains the two modes of use — no folder means all owned notes, with folder means one folder's direct notes plus its subfolder names — which tells the agent how to choose parameters. It does not name an alternative sibling (e.g. read_note for a single note) or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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