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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's main added value is the note that the operation is a POST endpoint despite being a read/list — useful counter-intuitive context. It still omits pagination/result-size behavior and whether notes are ordered or limited.

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, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The endpoint line is compact and carries real information about the transport method.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this is close to adequate, but the agent still doesn't know the shape or volume of returned notes or whether the list is paginated.

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 0% for the single parameter appointment_id, so the description must compensate. "Of one appointment" implies the parameter's role but doesn't name it or add format guidance, leaving a small but real gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("List the notes") with explicit scope ("of one appointment"), which cleanly separates it from the sibling moego_list_customer_notes. It stops short of stating anything about filtering or result size, but the core purpose 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?

No indication of when to choose this over moego_list_customer_notes or moego_get_appointment, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. that a valid appointment_id is required). Usage is only inferable from the scope phrase.

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