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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds two things they don't: the newest-first ordering and that the call spends no credits. It still omits pagination behavior and result shape, but the credit and sort context is genuinely additive.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the verb and resource; no filler. The second clause ("Notes on the prospect") is mildly redundant with the first sentence but not wasteful.

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 paginated list with no output schema, the definition leaves the caller without guidance on paging defaults, result contents, or empty-state behavior. Safety profile is handled by annotations, but the paging story is missing from both description and (reported) schema coverage.

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?

The description mentions no parameters at all, and with schema description coverage reported at 0% for this definition, nothing in the description compensates for the nested path.id and query.page/per_page inputs. An agent must read the raw schema to learn required fields and the 100-item cap.

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 and resource ("List prospect notes") and adds scope detail ("Notes on the prospect, newest first"), which separates it from the sibling that fetches a single note by id. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: "Retrieves data without changing records or spending credits" signals a read-only retrieval path, but there is no statement of when to choose this over dealmachine_get_prospects_id_notes_note_id or how it relates to activity/files/tags endpoints on the same prospect.

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