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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination cap and the underlying endpoint, which gives light context, but says nothing about what a 'summary' returns or ordering behavior. Adequate but not rich.

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 sentences plus an endpoint reference, with the query dimensions front-loaded and no wasted words. The trailing API endpoint is mildly extraneous for an agent but does not hurt readability.

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 could explain what fields a note summary contains, but it only implies 'summaries' versus full notes. For an 8-parameter list tool this is minimum viable rather than complete.

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 are already fully documented in the schema; the description merely names the same filter dimensions (client, lock status, date range, last-updated). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) with the queryable dimensions spelled out. The word 'summaries' quietly distinguishes it from the singular intakeq_get_note, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops 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?

Lists the available filters but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not point to intakeq_get_note or any other alternative for retrieving full note content. The agent must infer usage purely from the list-style name and parameters.

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