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 returned field set (type, text, original date) and the underlying API endpoint, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or empty results beyond what the schema's limit/offset params imply.

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: the first front-loads what is returned, the second supplies the API endpoint for cross-referencing. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only list endpoint with a fully documented schema and an annotation covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient, and it usefully names the return fields in the absence of an output schema. Minor gaps are ordering/pagination semantics, which are only partly implied by the schema.

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 limit, offset, and constituent_id each fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., whether notes are ordered by date, which affects offset use), so it does not rise above baseline.

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 resource (notes on a constituent) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from the many sibling list tools (gifts, contact reports, memberships) by resource alone. The verb 'list' is implied rather than stated, but the scope is unambiguous.

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-scoped name and stated scope; an agent can infer it lists notes for a given constituent. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as lgl_create_note for writing notes, and no indication of prerequisites or when this list would be empty.

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