List notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: default ordering (newest first), that results are truncated previews unless response_format is detailed, and pagination via next_cursor. That's solid added context, though permissions or note-visibility constraints are not discussed.

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 verb, ordering, and filters; the alternative is named early. The closing sentence enumerates the return shape even though an output schema exists, which is mild redundancy, but overall the text is tight and well ordered.

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?

Annotations cover safety, the output schema covers return values, and the schema covers every parameter, so the remaining burden is low and mostly met. The description handles ordering, preview-vs-full-text, and pagination adequately; only edge-case behavior (empty results, search error handling) is absent.

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 all five parameters are already documented, including search matching titles and bodies and the concise 200-character preview. The description restates these without adding syntax, format, or interaction details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 ("Lists notes") plus ordering ("newest first") and the optional filters, and explicitly marks its difference from heliyos_notes_get (full text). An agent can distinguish it from every sibling in the notes group without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool heliyos_notes_get and the condition that selects it ("for the full text"), and implies the filtering modes available here. There's no explicit when-not guidance for search vs record_id combinations, so it falls just short of a 5.

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