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

The annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the concrete API endpoint and confirms the resource is staff notes. It does not describe pagination behavior or ordering, and the POST endpoint could create minor read/write ambiguity, though the ':list' suffix and readOnly annotation reconcile it.

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 sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The API endpoint adds concrete context without bloating the definition.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is listed and the endpoint. However, it omits usage routing against siblings and does not explain pagination flow, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 67%: page_size and page_token are documented in the schema, while customer_id is not. The description adds only that the operation is on a customer and shows {id} in the endpoint path, which partially compensates but does not clarify customer_id format or pagination semantics.

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 'staff notes on a customer.' This is clear enough to know what the tool retrieves, though it does not explicitly distinguish the scope from siblings like moego_list_appointment_notes or moego_append_customer_note.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is for reading customer notes rather than appending one or listing appointment notes.

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