get_contact_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the required `contact_notes:read` permission and the HTTP route, which is genuinely useful auth context. However it says nothing about pagination, ordering, result limits, or what an empty result means for a list tool.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with purpose and permission, with the routing detail after. The trailing "Tags: Contact notes" line is boilerplate that adds little, but overall there is no wasted prose.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers authentication and scope adequately, but omits response shape and pagination behavior, leaving an agent unable to predict what comes back.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents `id`. The endpoint template reinforces that `id` is the contact id rather than a note id, but no format or validity details are added.

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+resource ("Get Contact Notes") and the underlying endpoint GET /api/v1/contacts/{id}/notes, which makes clear it lists notes scoped to a single contact. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_contact and get_contact_page_visits, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as create_contact_note or delete_contact_note, nor any note about when to prefer this over fetching the full contact. The only implicit guidance is that it requires a contact id.

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