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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so safety is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of what a missing id returns, no pagination or payload context. With the annotation bar low, this still contributes zero extra behavioral information.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and selector front-loaded; there is no filler at all.

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 one-parameter read with rich annotations, this is minimally sufficient to call correctly. However, with no output schema, the description could say whether it returns the note body plus author/contact linkage or just metadata, which is a meaningful 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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is documented in the schema itself. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no format, prefix, or ID-source guidance, so 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 and resource ('Read one contact_note') and makes clear it targets a single record rather than a collection. It does not name the sibling contact_note_list or contact_read, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name pattern alone.

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 only implied by 'by id' – the agent must already hold an id, which naturally routes it away from contact_note_list. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over listing or searching contact notes.

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