list_notes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely valuable context: returned content is untrusted web page data, which warns about prompt-injection risk. It also implies scroll-dependent retrieval behavior not captured by 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the caveats. Each sentence adds distinct value with no filler, though the untrusted-data warning could be positioned more logically relative to the keyword caveat.

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?

Covers the purpose, the keyword caveat, and the untrusted-data warning, which is solid given no output schema. But for a 6-parameter tool it omits meaningful explanation of platform, url (community page selection), scrolls, and limit, leaving the retrieval mechanics underspecified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 6 parameters, the description must carry the burden, but it only addresses the keyword parameter's semantics. It says nothing about url, platform, account, limit, or scrolls, leaving most parameters unexplained in both schema and description.

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+resource (query notes) and clarifies scope: your own notes or a specified community page's notes. This distinguishes it from the singular get_note sibling, though it never names the alternative 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?

Adds a useful usage caveat that keyword only filters titles within the current scroll range rather than performing a full-site search, which tells the agent when this filter is and isn't appropriate. However, it gives no guidance on when to pick this tool over get_note or search_destinations.

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