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 carries no safety burden. Beyond the annotations it only supplies the REST endpoint mapping; it says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or what happens when a job has no notes.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and the endpoint detail secondary. Nothing is wasted, though the raw endpoint string earns its place only for an API-adjacent caller.

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 single-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint already declared and no output schema to explain, the description is close to sufficient. The one real gap is list behavior – pagination or result caps – which an agent might need to know.

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% for the single job_number parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description references "one job" but adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond the structured field.

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 and resource ("List the notes on one job") and scopes it to a single job, which is enough to distinguish it from kickserv_list_customer_notes. It stops short of naming that sibling or any other alternative to make the distinction explicit.

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 scope phrase "on one job" – an agent can infer this is the read path for a job's notes. There is no statement of when to prefer it over kickserv_list_customer_notes, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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