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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive; the description adds that notes can contain HTML and reinforces that it never creates or changes notes. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the added HTML warning is useful context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted text. The exclusion and HTML warning are both material and efficiently stated.

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?

The description identifies the returned resource and notes that content may be HTML, but it does not describe the response shape or pagination behavior for a list endpoint. With no output schema and partial parameter explanation, some details are left 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only partially compensates: it explains record_type through the supported record categories and implies page via 'a page of notes.' It does not explain rows or record_id semantics, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb (Read) and resource (notes), lists the exact record types the notes can belong to, and excludes sales inventory notes. This makes the tool's scope distinguishable from the job/project/product reading siblings.

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?

It clearly states the applicable record types and explicitly excludes sales inventory notes, giving useful when-to-use context. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling notes tool exists in the provided set.

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