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 profile is covered. The description adds the pagination behavior and the endpoint, but says nothing about default ordering, empty-result behavior, or auth requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the resource and scope followed by the endpoint. Nothing is wasted, though the terse phrasing borders on under-specification rather than polished conciseness.

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 should say more about what a note record contains or at least that results are returned as a page of note objects. It covers scope and pagination but leaves the return shape and sorting defaults to inference.

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 coverage is 80% and the paging/sorting parameters carry detailed descriptions, including the caveat about 0- vs 1-based paging. However, the required household_id has no schema description, and the description only implicitly maps it via '{id}' in the path, adding little meaning 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?

The description names a specific resource (notes on a household record) and the exact endpoint, so an agent can tell it apart from funraise_list_supporter_notes or funraise_get_note. It never uses the verb 'list' explicitly, relying on the title and '(paginated)' to imply retrieval of a collection.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over funraise_list_supporter_notes, funraise_get_note, or funraise_create_household_note, and no prerequisites are stated. The only implied usage is the household scope, recoverable from the path template.

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