aonote demonstrates solid tool design with clear verb-noun naming (list_notes, create_note, update_note, delete_note) and comprehensive parameter schemas. All 10 tools have descriptions and input schemas with type definitions. However, parameter descriptions are sparse or missing for several tools (e.g., limit in list_notes lacks guidance on typical values; path in get_note lacks format examples). Output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot predict response structure for chaining. Error handling descriptions are absent; tools do not guide recovery (e.g., what happens on version conflict in update_note?). Mutually exclusive parameters (note_id vs path in get_note, filename vs path in create_note) are documented but could be clearer. Overall: solid foundation, but lacks LLM-optimized descriptions and output documentation needed for A-grade.

• Document output schemas for all tools. E.g., list_notes returns {notes: [{note_id, path, title, created_at, updated_at}], total_count}. Include field types and whether pagination is supported.
• Expand parameter descriptions to 50 - 150 chars with format hints. E.g., limit: 'Maximum number of results to return (1 - 50, default 20)'; path: 'Workspace-relative path like Projects/2024/Q1-review.md'.
• Add error handling guidance to write tools. E.g., update_note: 'If version mismatch, the note was edited elsewhere. Call get_note to fetch the latest version and retry.'
• Clarify mutually exclusive parameters with explicit language: 'Provide exactly one of note_id or path, never both. Omit note_id when using path.'
• Document pagination for list_notes and search_notes. E.g., 'Returns up to limit results. If total_count > limit, use offset parameter to fetch next page.' (if offset is supported; if not, add it).