Server defines 4 tools with explicit schemas and descriptions in Chinese. All tools have input schemas with type definitions and parameter descriptions. However, descriptions are brief (10-50 chars), lack actionable context for LLM selection, and omit critical details like prerequisites, return structure, and error guidance. No output schemas documented. Parameters lack constraints (enums, ranges, patterns). Error handling returns generic text without recovery guidance. Tool composition is reasonable (list, search, create, get) but descriptions don't explain when to use each tool or dependencies between them.

• Expand tool descriptions to 100-200 chars. Example for list-notebooks: 'Retrieve all notebooks in the current Yinxiang account. Returns notebook names and GUIDs. Call this first to discover available notebooks before creating or searching notes.'
• Document output schemas for all tools. Example: list-notebooks returns {count: number, notebooks: [{name: string, guid: string}]}. This enables LLMs to chain tools (e.g., extract guid from list-notebooks → pass to create-note).
• Add constraints to find-notes: maxResults as {type: 'number', minimum: 1, maximum: 50, default: 10}. Document that words supports Yinxiang search syntax (link to docs).
• Implement structured error responses with recovery hints. Example: 'Note not found (guid=xyz). Try find-notes() to search by title or content.' Categorize as retryable vs fatal.
• Translate descriptions to English or provide bilingual descriptions. LLMs trained primarily on English may misinterpret Chinese descriptions, reducing tool selection accuracy.