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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds only that the notes are 'internal' and the underlying endpoint, which is useful but thin; nothing about authorization requirements or pagination behavior is disclosed.

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, purpose first, with no filler. The trailing 'Booqable: GET /api/4/notes' is a cheap implementation detail but doesn't impede comprehension.

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?

With full schema coverage, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description only needs to convey purpose and scope, which it does. Pagination and return-shape detail live in the schema/annotations, so the brief text is nearly sufficient.

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% – owner_id, owner_type (with its enum), page and page_size are all documented in the schema. The description merely restates the owner-type mapping that the enum already provides, adding no format or usage nuance.

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') and resource ('internal notes'), plus the scope of records they hang off ('customer, order, product or other record'). It contrasts implicitly with the write sibling booqable_create_note, but never names it, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

The description says what notes are but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to booqable_create_note or the other list_* tools. The fact that a separate create_note tool exists is not acknowledged, so the agent gets no routing signal.

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