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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two facts not in structured data: results are sorted newest first, and each note carries subject, text, author and timestamp — both directly useful for consuming the response.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the resource scope plus sort order arrive before the APIv4 implementation note.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and ordering, and pagination is covered in the schema. Minor gap: no mention of an empty result or what happens for an unknown contact_id.

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 pagination semantics (limit, offset, next_offset) are fully documented there. The description only reinforces the single-contact scoping; a baseline 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+resource ('notes recorded on one contact') with the scope narrowed to a single contact, which cleanly separates it from civicrm_add_contact_note and the broader query tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of 5.

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 tool's use case (read the notes on a known contact) is implied but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no pointer to alternatives such as civicrm_query or civicrm_get_contact if the agent lacks a contact_id.

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