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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses result ordering (pinned first, then newest), the default exclusion of removed notes and the include_removed escape hatch, the source filter, and the visibility qualifier 'Notes you may see'. It does not mention pagination or result limits, and read-only nature is only implied.

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?

A single dense paragraph with no filler; scoping modes lead, then ordering, then filters, then the workflow recommendation. It is long but every clause carries information. It would read better as short bullets, and the parenthetical nesting around job_id is the one spot requiring re-reading.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the description covers all scoping modes, ordering, and default filtering. The notable gap is behavior with zero parameters (all are optional) and whether scoping parameters may be combined or are mutually exclusive — an agent could pass conflicting identifiers without knowing the outcome.

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 only 14%, but the description compensates for every one of the seven parameters: job_id is expanded to mean the job plus its visits and attached photos/quotes/invoices, target_kind/target_id define the record scope, visit_id is named, mentioning_me is explained as notes that mention the caller, source is given its enum values, and include_removed is defined behaviorally. This adds genuine meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description states the resource (notes) and enumerates the four distinct scoping modes it supports — a single record via target_kind/target_id, a job via job_id (including its visits, photos, quotes and invoices), a single visit, and notes that mention the caller. That is far more specific than the name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as notes_search or notes_get, which an agent must compare against when deciding how to retrieve notes.

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 closing sentence 'Read the notes on a record before you work on it' gives an explicit when-to-use instruction tied to a workflow step. The scoping modes implicitly tell the agent which identifier to supply for which situation. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer notes_search for free-text lookup or notes_get for a single known note).

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