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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and reach profile is covered externally. The description adds only the returned field list and the underlying endpoint (GET /order-notes), with no pagination behavior, ordering, or volume/cost caveats beyond what the schema states.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the purpose and scope lead, the returned fields follow in parentheses, and the endpoint is a compact footnote. Nothing is 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?

With no output schema, the parenthetical field list (id, sales order id, author, text, attachments) usefully describes the shape of the response, and pagination is fully specified in the schema. What remains thin is guidance on ordering or whether every order always has notes.

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 both parameters (page, items_per_page) already carry defaults, bounds, and the 'pass the previous reply's next_page' hint. The description contributes nothing extra about parameters, so the 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 and resource ('List the internal notes attached to sales orders') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It scopes to sales orders rather than tickets, which implicitly separates it from edesk_add_ticket_note, but it never names a sibling or an alternative read path.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name: read this when you need the notes on an order. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no pointer to edesk_add_order_note for creating a note or edesk_list_sales_orders for first resolving an order id.

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