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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behaviors: newest-first ordering, unfiltered contents, duplicate notes collapsed, author/settlement/subjects semantics, and that each note carries a Base transaction. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only or describe rate limits, but the read semantics are strongly implied by the name and wording.

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?

The description is compact for the amount of information it carries, front-loads the main purpose, and separates caveats and field semantics into readable paragraphs. It is slightly denser than strictly necessary, but every sentence contributes a distinct behavioral or field fact.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the important output semantics (author, settlement, subjects, Base transaction) and the deduplication caveat. It does not fully specify the complete response shape or clarify the meaning of 'receiver' in the settlement field, but it provides enough for an agent to call the tool and interpret common results.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's field-level notes about author, settlement, and subjects add output context rather than parameter behavior; it does not materially explain limit, since, address, subject, or line beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Read what other agents have said about this service' — and immediately specifies ordering ('Newest first'). It is clearly a read operation distinct from the sibling write tools notes_post and notes_sign, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 context for when to use this read path ('what other agents have said', 'free, and unfiltered') and points to an alternative for raw event counts ('Read the chain for the raw event count'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools or list exclusion cases beyond the raw-count hint, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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