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 only that results are paginated and the REST path, without saying anything about ordering defaults, total counts, or what a note record contains. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no filler and the resource scope stated first. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than maximal information density.

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 readOnly annotations the safety picture is clear, but there is no output schema and the description says nothing about the shape of a note, its fields, or whether sorting has a default. For a 5-parameter paginated list tool, that leaves an agent guessing about the return payload.

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 80% (page, sort, order, page_size are all documented; supporter_id is not), so the baseline is 3. The description's '(paginated)' nod confirms page/page_size behavior but adds no syntax or constraint detail 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 the resource precisely ('Notes on a supporter's record') and even gives the underlying endpoint GET /api/v2/supporter/{id}/note, which unambiguously scopes it to supporters rather than households. It is a noun fragment rather than an explicit verb+resource sentence and never names the sibling it is distinct from (funraise_list_household_notes), so it falls short of a 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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. An agent must infer from the name alone that this lists existing notes rather than creating them (funraise_create_supporter_note) or fetching a single note (funraise_get_note).

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