Client notes

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the default sort (newest first), the redaction policy, and precisely which fields are conditionally redacted (emails/phones/postcodes behind include_contact_details) versus always redacted (bank, card, NI numbers, DOB). That is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs before surfacing data.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then filters, then the redaction caveat and endpoint. Dense but every clause earns its place; the trailing endpoint reference is mildly redundant but useful for disambiguation.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden and does so: it enumerates returned fields, default ordering, filter dimensions, and privacy behavior. An agent has enough to call and interpret the result correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by tying include_contact_details to the redaction behavior and clarifying that some data is always redacted regardless of the flag, which the schema does not state. The remaining params are adequately documented in the schema.

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?

States a specific resource (notes) scoped to one client and enumerates what the notes cover (plans, cases, tasks, risks) plus the returned fields. An agent can distinguish this from get_client, get_case, or list_tasks without opening the schema.

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 implies usage by listing the filter dimensions (type, date range, text, attachment target), which tells the agent when the tool is applicable. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not guidance, e.g. whether searching notes across clients is handled elsewhere.

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