get_contact_notes

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

With no annotations and no description of behavioral traits (e.g., whether it's read-only, requires specific permissions, or has pagination semantics), the agent has limited insight. A 'get' operation is generally safe, but the description should at least note if it supports pagination or ordering, which is missing.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise and to the point, earning its place without unnecessary words.

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 complexity (two parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., array of note objects), pagination behavior, or ordering. With no output schema, the description needs to compensate but falls short.

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 100% as both parameters have descriptions ('Contact ID' and 'Number of results'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline for high coverage is 3. The limit parameter's maximum (200) is defined in the schema, not the description.

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 clearly states the action (get) and resource (notes for a contact). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_note' which creates notes, and 'get_contact' which retrieves contact details. However, it could be more specific by mentioning the scope 'all notes' but that is implied.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_contacts for broader searches, or get_contact_activity for specific events). There is no mention of context or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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