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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by specifying the returned fields (id, kind, key, title, revision, last editor) and explicitly setting the boundary that content is not included here. This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words: the first front-loads the return fields and scope, the second clarifies the boundary with notes.get. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and how it differs from fetching content. It relies on the schema for parameter details like limit and teamId, which is acceptable given the schema coverage.

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 75%, with meaningful descriptions for kind, scope, and teamId, and the limit parameter has default/min/max constraints. The description itself adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning the account/team distinction, so it does not significantly lift the schema's baseline.

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 clearly identifies the resource (notes) and the intended scope (key owner's account or team), and distinguishes this tool from notes.get by stating that content comes from notes.get. However, the verb 'list' is carried by the title and tool name rather than the description itself, which keeps it from a perfect 5.

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 sentence 'Content comes from notes.get' gives a clear routing signal: use notes.list for summary metadata and notes.get for full content. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when to use notes.save instead, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select the right tool.

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