list_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: results are previews rather than full note bodies. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or truncation limits on those previews.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the returned view. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

The tool is a simple, read-only, single-parameter list operation, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Only the preview/truncation behavior and result ordering are left implicit, which is 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains notebook_id and where to obtain it. The description adds no further 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 and resource ('Lista las notas del notebook') plus a distinguishing output trait ('con una vista previa'), so an agent can tell it returns abbreviated note content. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling read_note, but the verb 'list' vs 'read' makes the split largely inferable.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named (read_note, list_notebooks). The only navigational hint ('obtenlo con list_notebooks') lives in the JSON schema property description, not in this tool's description.

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