get_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the one-scope-required constraint, the 'unsupported_filter' failure mode (never approximated), pagination controls, and the deleted-notes default. It stops short of covering auth/permissions or what 'canonical' implies versus raw notes.

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?

Front-loads the core constraint before the Args/Returns sections, which is the right structure. It is long, and the repeated 'Primary scope:' phrasing across the id parameters adds some redundancy, but the length is largely justified by 15 undocumented parameters.

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 15-parameter, zero-schema-coverage, zero-annotation tool, the description covers scoping, filter-validation behavior, pagination, defaults, and date semantics; the output schema handles return-shape detail (briefly summarized). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all 15 parameters in an Args block: scope semantics, limit range 1-50, start offset, include_deleted default, inclusive date_from vs exclusive date_to (with 'date means midnight in the reporting timezone'), and validated action_type. This meaning is absent from the schema and is exactly what the description is for.

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 canonical notes (and their note_created events) for one record.' It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling create_note (a write) and clarifies that note_created events are bundled in. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear gating rule: 'Exactly one primary scope is required' followed by the enumerated scope forms, and explains that unsupported scopes/filters yield status 'unsupported_filter' rather than being approximated. It does not, however, route against sibling read tools like get_activity or search_entities, so no explicit alternatives are named.

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