List contract notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds that notes come from a contract's activity log and UI appearance, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or any limits. With annotations covering safety, the description provides moderate additional behavioral context.

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?

Two succinct sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second provides pairing context. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with core purpose.

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 low complexity (one required param, simple list operation) and high schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It could mention whether the list is comprehensive or paginated, but the pairing hint and UI reference add useful context. Overall adequate for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 a clear description of contract_id. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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?

Clearly states it lists comments/notes on a contract's activity log. Clarifies UI terminology ('in SpotDraft's UI these appear as 'notes''). Distinguishes from its write counterpart create_contract_note. Verb 'Lists' plus specific resource 'contract notes' leaves no ambiguity.

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 pairs this tool with create_contract_note for writing, indicating read vs write roles. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. Since it's the only list-notes tool among siblings, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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