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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: the vendor does not paginate this endpoint, meaning a single call returns the full set. It stops short of describing the note fields or ordering.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the core purpose comes first and the non-pagination caveat follows. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and the description covering the pagination quirk, this is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the absence of output schema, leaving note contents/ordering unspecified.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the numeric ID format and precision rationale. The description only reinforces that the ID refers to a lease, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Read notes for one Propertyware lease') with clear scope of a single lease, which implicitly separates it from propertyware_list_building_notes. It falls short of 5 only because it never names the sibling it displaces or clarifies the note concept further.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for retrieving notes tied to a known lease ID. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., list_building_notes, get_lease).

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