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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds valuable context by specifying the caller scope and the inclusion of text, but it omits details like ordering, pagination, or return structure. With annotations covering the core safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or 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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key aspects: what is listed and what is returned. It does not mention pagination or metadata fields, but given the low complexity and strong annotations, it is sufficiently complete. A slight gap is the lack of any guidance on alternatives, but that is not critical for this simple tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the operation is scoped to the caller's notes, which is not expressed in the empty schema. This meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('every note the caller has written') and includes the output content ('with its text'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like notes_get, which presumably retrieves a single note.

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 phrase 'List every note the caller has written' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need all notes authored by the caller. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name siblings, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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