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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content shape ('who and when'), which is genuinely useful and not in the annotations, but says nothing about ordering, default size, or freshness window.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the key content ('who and when') is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its terseness means information is omitted rather than merely compressed.

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 listing tool with safety fully covered by annotations and no output schema, the basics are present, but ordering guarantees, default limit, and the recency window are all unspecified. An agent can call it, but cannot predict result size or ordering.

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 only 50%: the 'workspace' parameter is documented but 'limit' has no description anywhere. The description supplies no parameter information at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented limit; the agent cannot tell its default or its units.

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 names the resource (recently changed notes) and the contents of each entry (who and when), which tells an agent clearly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings such as list_files, find_notes, or search, so the agent must infer the difference from the names alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over list_files, find_notes, or search, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the title and sibling names.

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