list_deal_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that it lists notes, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or any other behavioral traits beyond what is implied by 'list'. While listing is typically non-destructive, the description adds no explicit 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple list tool with schema coverage of all parameters, the description covers the core functionality. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain the return format or confirm pagination behavior (though the schema parameter descriptions cover start and limit). It is nearly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its 3 parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or context to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Lista' (lists) and the resource 'notas de um deal' (notes of a deal). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_deal_summary, which provides a more comprehensive view.

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 explicitly directs users to prefer get_deal_summary for a complete view with activities, fields, and history, providing clear when-to-use guidance and an alternative.

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