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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the terminology mapping and the at-least-one-ID constraint, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume beyond what the schema's page/per_page fields already 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?

Three tight sentences with the entity scope and the mandatory-ID constraint front-loaded; every clause carries information. The trailing 'GET /notes' is minor boilerplate but costs little.

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 an 11-parameter list tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers the essential invocation constraint and the filter surface, leaving pagination details to the schema where they belong. The one gap is sibling disambiguation, which the description never addresses.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's filter list (text, category, author, created date) is a prose restatement of query, category_id, author_id and created_after/before with no added syntax or edge-case detail, so the baseline of 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), names the entity types they attach to, and clarifies the terminology mismatch with the CRM app ('called activities'). It does not, however, differentiate from the close siblings pipelinecrm_list_deal_notes and pipelinecrm_list_person_notes, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 constraint 'Pass at least one of deal_id, person_id, company_id' is genuine, actionable usage guidance that tells the agent how to invoke it correctly. Beyond that it only enumerates filter dimensions and never states when to prefer this over the entity-specific siblings list_deal_notes / list_person_notes.

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