List a book's annotations

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already establish the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: the exact row layout, the second-line note prefix, and the pagination-footer behavior ('a footer names the next offset when there are more') are behavioral details not available in the annotations.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the Args block is tightly scoped. The inline row-format snippet is slightly heavy but earns its place by telling the agent what the return text looks like.

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 lean, no-output-schema, read-only list tool, the description is complete: it covers the return format, note handling, and the pagination contract an agent needs to page correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden and does: book_id as numeric ID, limit as 1-500 with default 50, and offset explained as a skip count for paging. All three parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 with an explicit scope: 'List annotations within a specific book in reading order'. The 'within a specific book' qualifier implicitly separates it from list_all_annotations, but it never names a sibling, so it stops short of 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 by the per-book scoping. The description never says when to prefer this over list_all_annotations, search_annotations, recent_annotations, or get_annotations_by_date_range, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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