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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the sort order ("newest first") and page cap, but "up to 50 per page" largely restates the schema's maximum of 50, and nothing is said about what a note contains or how offset paging behaves.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary scope front-loaded and the scoping exception second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 read-only paged list with no output schema, the description covers ordering, page size and the contact/deal scoping rule, which is most of what an agent needs to call it. The remaining gap is the meaning of cardId and the account case of entity_type, minor for a list tool whose annotations already establish safety.

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 parameter meaning, and it only partly does: entity_type/entity_id get real semantic explanation, but cardId, limit and offset are never described. It also leaves unexplained when entity_type="account" should be used given that cardId already identifies the company.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Lists notes on a company") and immediately extends the scope to contacts and deals, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It implicitly separates itself from createCompanyNote, archiveCompanyNotes and getCompanyNoteCounts, but never names those siblings as alternatives.

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?

It gives a concrete conditional: set entity_type and entity_id when the notes belong to a contact or deal of the company. There are no explicit exclusions or pointers to sibling tools (e.g. getCompanyNoteCounts for counts, createCompanyNote for writes), so the guidance is clear but not complete.

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