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 endpoint path and the fact that both regular and SOAP note types are returned, which is useful content-level context, but it says nothing about pagination behaviour, result ordering, or what an empty list means. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a moderate contribution.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and the API endpoint appended as supporting detail. No filler sentences and nothing that would need to be trimmed.

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 paginated read tool with full schema coverage, an existing readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description supplies the essential purpose and content scope. The remaining gap is minor: it does not hint at return shape or default sort, which an agent might want since no output schema exists.

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 page, pageSize, sortBy, and sortOrder are already fully documented in the schema, and the baseline for this case is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no default ordering, no note-type filter), so it does not exceed the schema 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 verb and resource ('List the staff notes ... recorded on one member') and even narrows the content type to regular and SOAP notes, so an agent can tell it is a per-member note listing rather than a general member read. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as momence_get_member, which could plausibly surface similar data, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. An agent is not told whether to prefer this over momence_get_member when it wants a member's notes, nor that memberId must reference an existing member. Usage is left to inference from the resource name.

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