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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no ordering, no pagination behavior, no default limit note (the schema carries the default), and no statement about what the two scopes return. It repeats intent rather than disclosing behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scoping decision (all vs. one contact) is stated immediately. It is a phrase rather than a full sentence, which slightly limits fluency but not usefulness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; params are fully documented. What is missing is any note on result ordering or pagination semantics for a list operation, leaving the definition merely adequate for a simple read tool.

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 100%, so both 'limit' and 'contact_id' are fully documented by the schema. The description's 'across everyone or for one specific contact' loosely maps to contact_id being optional, but adds no format, range, or default detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('see/list') and resource ('notes') and even names the two scopes (across everyone vs. one contact). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling notes.get, which an agent must infer from the name alone.

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?

'When the user wants to see notes' gives an implied trigger condition and the contact-scoping branch is spelled out. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use notes.get for a single known note id) and no mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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