autotask_search_company_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Search' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), or potential rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (search operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., note content, metadata), how results are structured, or any limitations. For a search tool with no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (companyId and pageSize). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'notes' entail or search criteria. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers parameter details.

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 ('Search for notes') and target resource ('on a specific company'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'autotask_search_project_notes' or 'autotask_search_ticket_notes' that search notes on different entities, missing explicit differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid company ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'autotask_get_company_note' (which might retrieve a single note) or other search tools in the sibling list.

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