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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the 'pinned first' ordering and the composition of each note (who wrote it and when), which the agent would not otherwise know.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carries purpose, return fields and sort order, followed by the API endpoint on a separate clause. No filler; every element earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by naming the returned fields and ordering, which is exactly what an agent needs. Only pagination behavior for a potentially long notes list is left unmentioned.

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% and the single contact_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (contact notes), and enumerates the returned fields (content, pinned, visibility, author, timestamp), which sharply distinguishes it from the write-side sibling churchsuite_add_contact_note. An agent can identify the operation without opening either 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?

The description implies its usage ('notes on a contact') but never states when to prefer it over alternatives or any prerequisites for reading a contact's notes. Usage is inferable from the resource, not spelled out.

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