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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the entity-scoping constraint but says nothing about pagination behavior or the shape/cost of the result set, which would be useful for a list endpoint.

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 the resource first and the critical selection rule immediately after, in parentheses. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs reordering.

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?

There is no output schema, so the agent has no structured signal about what a note object looks like or whether results are paginated; the description does not fill that gap. The core calling contract is complete, but return-value and pagination behavior remain undocumented.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the most important part: it explains that the three ID parameters are mutually exclusive and that exactly one must be supplied — a constraint the schema cannot express (no required fields, no oneOf). It leaves limit/offset entirely to the schema, where only limit has a partial note.

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 ('notes') plus the exact scope: notes attached to a contact, company, or deal. The parenthetical constraint makes it unambiguous and clearly separates it from the mutating sibling notes_manage.

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 description gives a hard invocation rule — pass exactly one of contactId / companyId / dealId — which tells the agent precisely how to call it. It does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g., notes_manage for creating/updating), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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