autotask_search_company_notes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It warns about API rate limiting when iterating across companies, which is valuable. However, it omits details like return format, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements, making it only moderately transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose (stating functionality and providing usage guidance). No redundant or 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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential points: what it does and a critical usage constraint. It could briefly mention the return format, but the absence is not severely detrimental.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (companyId and pageSize). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the score is at the baseline of 3.

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 the target ('on a specific company'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like autotask_create_company_note (create) and autotask_get_company_note (get by ID).

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 an explicit usage warning: iterating across many companies triggers Autotask's API threshold, advising to scope the parent list first. This guides the agent on when to use this tool (single company) and when to avoid (multiple companies without prior scoping).

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