List document notes

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that notes include authors and timestamps and that they may contain non-OCR context, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, empty-result behavior, or what the returned structure looks like.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler: the first states the resource and key output fields, and the second provides genuinely useful context about when the notes matter. The most actionable information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core need: what the tool returns (notes with authors/timestamps) and why it is valuable. It does not describe the exact JSON array shape, but the annotations and low complexity make this a moderate rather than critical gap.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should clarify the parameter, and it only loosely implies that the single 'id' refers to a document. The phrase 'attached to a document' plus the tool name makes the parameter inferable, but the description does not explicitly say 'the id of the document whose notes should be listed.'

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 identifies the resource as 'notes attached to a document' and indicates the content includes authors and timestamps, so an agent can tell this is a read operation on document notes. However, it relies on the tool name/title for the actual verb 'list' and does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling read tools like get_document_content or search_documents.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: 'worth reading before drawing conclusions about a document' because notes contain information the OCR text lacks. It does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but it does convey a concrete scenario where this tool is appropriate.

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