List Highlights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the sort order ('newest first') and that associated notes are returned, but says nothing about pagination limits or result cap, which the schema alone carries.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the two pieces of information that matter (notes included, newest first). No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description covers enough to call it correctly. The only real gap is the absence of sibling differentiation against search_bookmarks and list_bookmarks.

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 limit, cursor, and bookmark_id are each documented in the schema itself. The description adds no filtering or pagination semantics beyond that baseline, so a 3 is the correct floor.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List text highlights') and adds scope detail — highlights plus their notes, ordered newest first. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_bookmarks or list_bookmarks, so an agent must infer the difference, which keeps it below a 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?

Usage is only implied: 'the user made while reading' suggests a personal browsing-history listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer search_bookmarks for filtered queries, and no stated exclusions. An agent can guess the context but is given no routing rules.

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