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, yet 'free-text' is the only behavioral hint. It does not disclose that this is a read operation, whether results are paginated, what date-range semantics apply, or whose notes are returned.

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?

It is short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. A single noun fragment cannot front-load intent or scope for a tool with four 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the tool has four parameters at 0% coverage and no annotations. The description supplies none of the missing filtering, ordering, or safety context, leaving it wholly inadequate.

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% across 4 parameters (author, start_date, end_date, client_id), and the description names none of them. It adds zero meaning beyond the raw schema, so the author enum and date-range filtering are unexplained.

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 is a noun fragment that essentially restates the tool name ('notes') and adds only a content-type qualifier (free-text, clinical/coach/client). It states no verb and no scope, and gives no basis for distinguishing it from the sibling get_chat_history.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative (get_chat_history) for retrieving conversational text. The agent is left to guess entirely.

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