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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint reference and the type requirement, but nothing about pagination limits or response shape that isn't already in the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the required constraint, then the endpoint. Nothing redundant.

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 10-parameter read tool with no output schema, it covers scope, the required type, and which fields come back. Pagination (page_token, offset) and ordering are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but slightly thin for a paginated list.

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 type/matter_id/contact_id relationship is already stated in the property descriptions. The description only restates that pairing, adding no formats, defaults or examples beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('List notes on a matter or a contact'), plus the returned attributes (subject, body, date, author) and the underlying endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling write tool clio_create_note.

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?

States the hard constraint that Clio requires type and tells the agent to narrow scope with matter_id or contact_id. It does not name an explicit alternative for searching notes without a matter/contact, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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