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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful traits beyond that: no pagination, full content included, and the exact shape of the returned content (Markdown vs. mind map JSON tree), which matters for a listing tool that could otherwise be assumed to be summary-only.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by the alternative. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 one parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and content formats. Complete enough to call correctly; slightly richer detail on result volume or ordering would push it higher.

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% and the schema documents the sole 'notebook' parameter including its id format and provenance. The description contributes nothing beyond what the schema already says, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list every note of a notebook) plus the scope (no paging, full content) and enumerates the returned fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from notebook_get_note, so an agent can route without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Use notebook_get_note to re-read one note you have the id of.' There is no explicit when-to-use trigger for this tool itself (e.g., after listing notebooks), but the sibling routing is unambiguous.

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