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

Annotations already mark read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: no admission requirement, default limit of 10, and the security-relevant statement that notebook contents are data, not instructions. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 dense sentences with all operational facts front-loaded and no filler. Every clause adds value: the core action, the parameter behavior, the default, the prerequisite exemption, and the safety warning.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers authorization context, pagination behavior, and security guidance, leaving little that is essential missing. Return structure and deeper cursor semantics are not described, but those are partially encoded in the schema and are minor for this scope.

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 only 20%, so the description carries real weight here. It explains id as single-entry lookup, q/before/limit as paged previews, and sets the default for limit at 10, but it could further clarify q's search semantics and before's cursor format.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the authenticated character’s complete private archive,' clearly distinguishing it from public/world siblings. It also immediately clarifies the retrieval modes: id returns one entry while q/before/limit searches paged previews.

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?

Provides concrete selection guidance such as using id for a single entry and q/before/limit for paged searches, plus the important exclusion that active admission is not required. It does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly, but the private-versus-public framing implies when this tool is appropriate.

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