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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the 100-records-per-page cap and the underlying endpoint, but the cap largely duplicates the schema's page description and nothing is said about total counts, ordering, or pagination end conditions.

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 terse sentences plus an endpoint reference, front-loaded with the capability and filters before the page limit. The 'IntakeQ: GET /notes/summary' fragment is implementation trivia that adds little for an agent, keeping it just under top marks.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and 'note summaries' is left undefined (which fields, whether locked/deleted notes are excluded by default). For a read-only list tool the safety profile is covered, but the return semantics are only gestured at.

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%, so all eight parameters (page, client, status, dates, updated_since, deleted_only) are already documented, including the lock-status enum values. The description only restates the filter categories at a high level and adds no format or defaulting detail, so 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 (Query) and resource (treatment note summaries) and enumerates the filter dimensions, so it is clearly not the single-note sibling intakeq_get_note. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or contrasting list-vs-get, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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?

Listing the available filters implies when this tool is useful, and 'summaries' hints it is the bulk/overview route rather than full note retrieval. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs intakeq_get_note guidance and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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