list_member_notes

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

Discloses authentication (API key), concurrency limit (max 10), read-only idempotent nature, and a specific error case. Without annotations, this covers key behavioral traits. Could include more error scenarios but sufficient.

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?

Well-structured with sections (description, usage, args, returns). Some redundancy (explains notes twice) but overall efficient. Front-loaded with 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?

Output schema exists, and description fully explains return format (JSON fields). Covers error condition (404). Given tool complexity with pagination, description is complete and informs agent of all expected behavior.

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?

Adds full meaning beyond raw schema: list_id format (10-char alphanumeric, example, source), email_address requirement (must exist), count range (1-1000, default 20), offset pagination usage. Schema had 0% coverage, so description compensates entirely.

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 CRM-style notes attached to a member by team members, emphasizing that notes are internal. Distinguishes from sibling tools like add_member_note, update_member_note, delete_member_note by explicitly mentioning their use.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('List...') and directs to siblings for create/update/delete. Notes read-only and safe to retry, aiding agent decision. Mentions error condition (404 if member not found).

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