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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine trait beyond structured data — results are returned newest first — and implies per-caller scoping via 'your', but says nothing about volume, paging behavior, or return shape beyond what the schema documents.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, leading with the verb and resource and appending the ordering only because it matters. Nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter, read-only list with no output schema, the schema does the heavy lifting on paging and the annotations cover safety. Still missing is what a 'contact_note' represents and whether 'your' means the caller, the tenant, or the user — context an agent may need to interpret an empty result.

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%, and the limit/cursor descriptions already explain the two response shapes (bare array vs { items, next_cursor, limit }) in detail. The description adds nothing about paging, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (contact_note rows) plus the sort order, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings such as contact_note_read or contact_list, and 'contact_note' as a raw table-style name leaves the agent to infer what a note is attached to.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus contact_note_read (single record?) or contact_list. Only a weak implied scope ('your ... rows') hints that it is an unfiltered browse, with no exclusions or prerequisites given.

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