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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by warning that notes may contain health information logged by staff, which is important for an agent handling sensitive data; it does not, however, describe pagination or result ordering.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary listing behavior is front-loaded, and the health-information caveat follows naturally without bloating the description.

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 read-only listing tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the sensitive nature of note content. It is nearly complete, though a brief mention of the limit/pagination behavior would close the remaining 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that clientId is optional and scopes results to one client, and 'for this agency' implies agencyId, but it says nothing about the limit parameter or its maximum of 100.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'Lists LovedOne Soft visit/note events,' and it scopes that listing to the agency or a single client. This clearly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like add_visit_note and schedule_visit, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 phrase 'optionally for one client' gives useful scope context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus related tools, no when-not conditions, and no notes on pagination or the limit parameter. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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