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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the mutual-exclusivity rule but says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape, so it adds only modest context beyond structured data.

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 tight sentence with the key constraint in parentheses, front-loaded after the verb+resource. No wasted words.

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 5-parameter list tool with no output schema and 0 required parameters, the description covers the critical selection rule but omits pagination defaults/limits interaction and expected return content. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 20%, the description carries real weight by clarifying that the three ID parameters are mutually exclusive and one is required — a constraint the schema does not express. It leaves limit/offset semantics to the schema, so it compensates without being complete.

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) along with the three entity types they attach to. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the CRUD siblings (notes_create/update/delete) make the scope unambiguous.

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 concrete usage constraint: pass exactly one of contactId/companyId/dealId. That is clear invocation guidance, though it doesn't state when to prefer this over other read tools or mention prerequisites/permissions.

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