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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the side effect of auto-adding the 'keep-mcp' label, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose authentication needs or return behavior.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by the label behavior, achieving maximum efficiency.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and an important side effect, but lacks parameter explanations and any guidance on when not to use it. Given the simplicity of the tool and presence of annotations, it's minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0% for text, title, and account. The description only mentions 'text note' without explaining the role of each parameter, leaving agents to infer the meaning of 'account' or whether 'title' is required.

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 explicitly states the action (create) and resource (text note in Google Keep), and distinguishes from siblings like keep_create_list by specifying it's a text note. The mention of the automatic label further clarifies the tool's unique behavior.

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?

Implies usage for creating a text note, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like keep_create_list or keep_update_note. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the 'when not to use' implicit.

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