list_all_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses auto-pagination (~100/page), a hard 5000-note safety cap, default filtering behavior, and concrete v2 response-shape details including what no longer exists (followers, comments, totalResults, features[].importance) and the migration path for displayUrl and linked features.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation, pagination and safety limit, then defaults, then response shape. It is dense but each sentence conveys actionable information; the v1→v2 migration notes are long but relevant for correct data interpretation.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the v2 note shape and the relationship/migration caveats, which is exactly what an agent needs to consume results. Minor gaps remain around rate limits or ordering, but nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema already documents all ten parameters, including defaults and the members:pii:read scope for ownerEmail. The description largely restates the archived/processed defaults and adds no syntax or interpretation beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Bulk-fetch Productboard notes via V2 API') with an explicit scope qualifier ('bulk-fetch') that hints at a paginated list operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling list_notes or search_notes, so an agent still has to infer which listing tool to pick.

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?

Gives clear defaults (processed+unprocessed, non-archived) and tells the agent how to include archived notes. It also names an alternative tool with a condition ('use get_note_relationships per note if you need them'). It stops short of distinguishing this tool from list_notes or search_notes.

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