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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the source endpoint, newest-first ordering, and the confidence that notes are not surfaced by other tools. No auth or rate-limit detail, but nothing misleading.

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?

Three tight sentences that are front-loaded with what the tool is, then where the data comes from, then the parameter constraint. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. Between the annotations (safety), the description (source, ordering, content, limit bounds, prerequisite), and the schema, an agent has everything needed to select and call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: 'limit' is explained with default 30 and max 200, and tenant_id is given a discovery path via list_tenants. tenant_id's own semantics (integer key) remain implicit, but the practical guidance is present.

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 ('History notes logged on a tenant') and enumerates the content type (rent-increase notices, payment arrangements, manager comments), which distinguishes it from financial tenant tools like get_tenant_ledger. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but 'context not visible elsewhere' differentiates it at a conceptual level.

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?

Gives a clear usage context ('context not visible elsewhere') and a prerequisite workflow ('Find the TenantID with list_tenants'), which tells the agent how to obtain the required input. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative tenant-note/resident-concern source.

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