viwoods_list_notebooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is met elsewhere. The description adds genuinely behavioral facts: folder is recursive into subfolders, query matches every word against title or folder, and since/until alter the response by appending pages_changed.

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?

Dense but efficient; parameter behavior is front-loaded right after the resource statement and no sentence is filler. The leading enumeration of output fields is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, slightly diluting the front-loading.

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 4-param, zero-required filter tool this covers everything needed: all four filters, their interaction with the response, ordering, and time-format grammar. Return fields need not be re-explained since an output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: folder recursion, query's AND-word matching on title/folder, and since/until accepting a date, date+time, 'today', 'yesterday', or relative durations (7d, 2w, 12h, 3m) with whole-day semantics for bare dates.

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 (list) and resource (shared notebooks in the Viwoods Paper app) plus ordering (newest first) and the returned shape. The clause 'with no need for the handwriting index' implicitly separates it from viwoods_search_handwriting, so an agent can route between them.

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?

Explains what each filter selects and when the since/until pair changes the output (adds pages_changed), which is real usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly (e.g. 'use search_handwriting for page content'), leaving that to inference.

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