list_member_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing the 404 error behavior when the member does not exist, and explains the return format including fields like email_address, total_items, and notes array.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the primary purpose, adds a clarifying note about internal use, mentions related tools, an error case, then lists parameters and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters (including optional 'account'), and the description explains 4 of them. The return format is fully described. For a read-only list tool with good annotations, the description is largely complete, though the 'account' parameter is omitted. No output schema is provided, so the return description is helpful.

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%, but the description compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations: list_id (10-char alphanumeric, source), email_address (must exist), count (range 1-1000, default 20), offset (pagination). Return structure is also described. Only the optional 'account' parameter is not mentioned, but its default null makes it less critical.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'CRM-style notes attached to a member', and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_member_note, update_member_note, delete_member_note. It also specifies that notes are internal and not visible to contacts.

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 explicit context: 'Notes are internal annotations... not sent to the contact' and references related tools for creating, updating, and deleting notes. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions but gives sufficient guidance for proper usage.

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