recent_notes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety profile, and 'Read' does imply a non-mutating operation. 'Recent' signals recency ordering, which is useful behavior beyond the schema. What remains undisclosed is how recency is determined, whether results interleave contacts and deals, whether the query filter is applied before or after the limit, and anything about pagination beyond the schema's page cap of 100.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the purpose statement is front-loaded and the usage hint follows immediately. Every clause contributes information.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the definition is largely sufficient. The notable gap is that there is no parameter to scope results to a specific contact or deal, and the description never addresses this — an agent asked for one account's notes gets no guidance on whether to rely on the free-text query or use a different sibling tool.

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 100%, so both parameters (limit, query) are already fully documented, and the description adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction detail on top. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the semantic work.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read recent notes') plus scope ('logged against contacts and deals'), so the agent knows exactly what domain this touches. It does not name or differentiate itself from the sibling tools (search_contacts, search_deals, create_note), leaving the read-vs-create boundary to be inferred from the tool name.

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?

'Use this to recall context before summarizing an account' is a concrete triggering scenario rather than a generic 'use when needed'. However, it offers no exclusions or alternatives — nothing says what to use instead for a single contact's notes, or that create_note is the write counterpart.

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