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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by naming the returned content (calls, meetings, emails, touchpoints with type, date, text, author), but says nothing about pagination limits, default page size, or auth requirements, all of which matter for a listing call.

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, front-loaded sentences: the first defines the resource and payload, the second pins the exact upstream endpoint. No filler or restated title.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the fields returned, and the endpoint reference removes ambiguity about which API surface it hits. Only the paging/ordering behavior of the list is unaddressed, which the schema partly covers.

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%, with skip/take/sort_by/descending all documented in the schema, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about the cursor-style skip/take paging or the enum sort fields, so baseline 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 with scope: 'List the notes logged on a contact', and enumerates the returned fields (type, date, text, author). An agent can distinguish it from the write-side sibling virtuous_create_contact_note. It does not explicitly name any sibling it could be confused with, so it stops short of 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, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance; it never mentions virtuous_create_contact_note or any search/list sibling. Usage is only inferable from the fact that the tool takes a contact id.

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