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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden: it does disclose sort order (newest first) and an authorization constraint (owner or office only), both genuinely useful. It omits read-only vs mutating nature, pagination behavior despite the limit parameter, and what happens for non-owner callers.

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, front-loaded with scope and ordering, with the access restriction placed last as a caveat. No filler, though the second fragment could be merged more cleanly.

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 needn't be described, and the definition covers scope, order, and permissions. It remains thin for a query tool whose schema has no field descriptions — an agent still doesn't know what happens when results exceed the limit or whether the maximum of 200 is a hard cap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't: 'on a job' loosely implies job_id, but limit (1-200) is never explained and no truncation/paging semantics are given. 'Newest first' describes ordering rather than any parameter behavior.

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 resource (notes subcontractors left on a job) plus ordering (newest first), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors like notes_list, notes_search, or subs_get, leaving slight ambiguity about whose notes and which retrieval path.

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?

'Owner or office only' establishes an access precondition, which is useful implied usage guidance. But there is no statement of when to use this versus notes_list or suburbs/subs_get, and no mention of how to page through older notes.

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