list_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that notes are vendor-shared and scoped to a workspace, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or the multi-session origin behavior that the schema hints at.

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 front-loaded clause with a scoping anchor and concrete examples; no filler, no repetition of schema/annotations.

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 filtered-list read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate but thin: no return-shape hint (and none available, since no output schema), no pagination or empty-result behavior, and no sibling contrast. Enough to call it, not enough to call it confidently.

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 100%, so both workspace_id and origin are already documented in the schema (including the 'from list_projects' hint and the single-session condition). The description adds no parameter-level 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?

Clear verb+resource: it lists notes shared by the vendor in a workspace, and concretely anchors them (meeting notes, AI recaps, the portal's Notes tab). It does not name or contrast any sibling (e.g. list_workspace_files, list_attachments), so it stops short of the 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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The parenthetical domains imply what content is returned but never say when to prefer list_notes over list_workspace_files or list_messages.

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