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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the REST endpoint string, disclosing nothing behavioral beyond it — no pagination, ordering, or note-visibility semantics for a list operation.

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 compact sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the incidental API endpoint reference. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 whose annotations carry the safety profile, this is adequate but thin: with no output schema, the description says nothing about what the returned notes look like or whether results are paginated/sorted.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter (customer_number) is fully documented in the schema. The phrase 'on one customer' implies the customer scope but adds no format or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 and resource ('List the notes on one customer'), and the customer-scoped framing distinguishes it from the job-note sibling kickserv_list_job_notes. It is clear, though it never names an alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternative tools (kickserv_get_customer, kickserv_list_job_notes, kickserv_add_customer_note), and no prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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