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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results are ordered 'newest first' and the timeline blends two distinct record types, with `status_change` entries flagged as system-generated/read-only. It does not, however, mention pagination behavior in prose.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every clause carries content (ordering, record types). The opening line duplicates the title verbatim, which is a minor redundancy rather than a flaw.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the ordering and the composition of returned entries, which is what an agent most needs. It stops short of describing the shape of individual items (fields per note type) or pagination limits, but the annotations and schema cover the remaining risk.

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 100%, so limit, cursor, agent_id and contact_id (including clamping, cursor semantics and 404/403 error mappings) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('a contact's notes'), and further defines what the resource contains: `user_note` entries written by people and `status_change` entries Mojeeb generates. This clearly separates it from create_contact_note and update_contact_note without needing to open any schema.

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 implied by the name and the description's framing as a timeline read, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, nor any pointer to alternatives such as get_contact (contact fields) versus this timeline view. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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