list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that results are cursor-paginated and maps to a specific GET endpoint. It also notes the tier ('readonly-owner'). However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior when no notes exist.

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 brief with four sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded. Each sentence adds value, but the mention of 'hs_timestamp' on create could be seen as slightly off-topic. Overall, it is concise without significant waste.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description conveys that results are 'records, cursor-paginated', which provides some structure. The sibling tools (like list_companies, get_note) give context. It could be more complete by describing the return format, but it is adequate for a simple list operation.

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 adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The tip about 'hs_timestamp' on create does not relate to the current tool's parameters.

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 tool lists notes from a CRM record timeline, with examples of record types (contact, company, deal). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_note' by implying this is for multiple notes, and the verb 'list' is specific.

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 for listing notes on a record timeline but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_note'. The mention of 'hs_timestamp' and associations is more relevant to creation than listing. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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