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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the default ordering (newest first), but says nothing about pagination behavior, page size limits, or result volume — the sort_direction param can override the stated default, which is left implicit.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope before the filters, and the API operation name (GetNotes) appended as a compact identifier. No wasted words.

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?

All seven parameters are optional, safety is covered by annotations, and the description covers scope, default ordering, and filter dimensions. With no output schema, pagination and response shape remain unstated, which is a minor gap for a list tool rather than a blocking one.

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 every parameter (including the author/user_ids mapping and the contact_id string-uid caveat) is already documented in the schema. The description restates the date-range and author filters without adding format or edge-case 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 and resource (list notes) plus its two scopes — whole CRM or a single contact — and the default sort order. An agent can distinguish this from lacrm_create_note (opposite operation) and from contact-scoped getters without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for selection: use it globally, or pass a contact to narrow to one contact's notes, and filter by date range and author. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., whether lacrm_get_contact already returns notes), so it is context without routing.

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