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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It makes the read-only list operation and the exclusive-ID constraint explicit, which is meaningful. But it says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or response contents beyond 'notes,' leaving part of the burden unmet.

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?

Two tight sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core operation, the second adds the use case and the critical exclusivity rule. No redundant or repeated schema details.

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 simple list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the operation, the intended use case, and the main selection rule. It omits details like default ordering or return format, but those are not essential to invoke correctly given the schema includes limit/offset defaults.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a crucial constraint not present in the schema: 'Pass exactly one of contactId / companyId / dealId.' This is essential because the schema marks all parameters optional and does not encode mutual exclusivity. It doesn't need to explain limit/offset since the schema already does.

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'), a concrete resource ('notes'), and an explicit scope ('attached to a contact, company, or deal'). This clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like notes_create/notes_delete and other list tools like calls_list.

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?

Explicitly prescribes a use case: 'show recent context before drafting a follow-up.' It does not give when-not-to-use or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5, but the intended context is clear.

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