clio_find_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Read notes' but leaves ambiguity: it does not clarify whether the corresponding ID is required conditionally, how limit affects results, or what the return format is. The phrase 'with matter_id' may suggest it is required, yet the schema marks it optional.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and immediately states the key parameter requirement, making it easy to parse.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that this is a find/list operation (vs clio_get_note for a single note), nor does it mention pagination, limits, or behavior when no notes are found. The conditional dependency between type and ID is hinted at but not fully specified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that type='Matter' pairs with matter_id and type='Contact' with contact_id, which goes beyond the schema's enum. However, it does not describe the limit parameter or the optional/required nature of the IDs.

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 states 'Read notes' and clarifies the required type parameter with its mapping to matter_id or contact_id. This distinguishes it from sibling clio_get_note by indicating a type-based retrieval, but the phrase 'Read notes' is somewhat generic and could more explicitly say 'list' or 'find'.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clio_get_note. The description only explains the type requirement but does not state the use case (e.g., finding notes for a matter/contact) or mention any exclusions.

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