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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It still usefully adds that results are staff-only (an auth requirement), returned oldest-first (ordering), and annotated with per-key permitted actions — none of which the annotations convey.

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 dense sentence front-loads the resource and scope, then adds ordering and content detail with zero wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description covers auth scope, ordering, and the per-note permission payload. It omits pagination/volume behavior for what could be a long note list, a minor gap.

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 single 'entry' parameter is fully documented in the schema (VHID, short name, or QID). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (staff-only internal notes on an entry), plus scope and ordering (oldest first). The 'list' framing clearly separates it from its write siblings add_entry_note, edit_entry_note, and delete_entry_note, though it never names them 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?

The 'staff-only' qualifier implies a precondition for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no reference to alternatives such as get_entry_admin or the note mutation siblings. Usage context is only implied.

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