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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safe read profile, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the underlying endpoint (GET .../notes.xml), confirming a retrieval call, but discloses nothing about pagination, result ordering, empty-note behavior, or auth requirements.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the endpoint reference; nothing is redundant. It is efficient, though the raw API path adds little for an agent that already has the structured schema.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the essentials are present. However, without an output schema the description could reasonably mention the shape or pagination of returned notes and does not.

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% with a single well-documented customer_number parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond 'on one customer', which justifies the baseline 3.

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 (list) and resource (notes on one customer), and the phrase 'on one customer' implicitly separates it from the sibling list_job_notes. No sibling is named explicitly, 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?

Usage is implied by the resource scoping – retrieve notes belonging to a single customer identified by customer_number. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the add_customer_note alternative for writing, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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