contacts_get_all_notes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the tool name itself—it does not state what data is returned, whether notes are filtered by anything else, or any edge cases. With annotations present, the bar is lower, yet the description still contributes nothing.

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?

The description is extremely short (three words), but this is under-specification rather than good conciseness. It lacks essential context about the resource and its scope, making it less helpful than a slightly longer description that clarifies usage. It does not front-load important constraints or relationship to siblings.

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?

Given the existence of sibling tools like contacts_get_note and contacts_get_all_tasks, the description is incomplete because it does not explain what 'All Notes' means relative to a contact. It also does not mention that it requires a contactId, despite that being the only parameter. While the schema provides the parameter, the description fails to connect it to the tool's purpose, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has a single required parameter 'contactId' with a description 'Contact Id', which is minimal but sufficient. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter or how it is used, so it adds no extra 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?

The description 'Get All Notes' conveys a verb and resource, but it is ambiguous about scope and does not differentiate from sibling tools like contacts_get_note (singular) or contacts_get_all_tasks. An agent cannot tell what 'All' refers to without reading the schema, and it does not distinguish this from other note-related operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it requires a contactId or that it returns all notes for a specific contact, nor does it contrast with contacts_get_note or contacts_create_note. An agent is left without any usage context.

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