Get Notes For Contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing that results include all note fields (removing the need for follow-up calls) and that count_only auto-paginates for accurate counts. It does not cover permission requirements or ordering, but those are less critical for a read-only list operation.

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 tightly written sentences with a clear lead sentence stating purpose. The emphasis on 'RETURNS FULL DATA' and the concrete count_only tip earn their place without fluff.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values (all note fields) and count_only behavior. It does not mention pagination defaults or error scenarios, but the schema covers parameter-level details, making this adequate for a list endpoint.

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 schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds limited value beyond reinforcing count_only behavior and result completeness. This is the appropriate baseline when the schema handles the details.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' with a clear resource ('all notes for a specific contact'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_note (single note) and search_notes. The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 clearly advises against calling get_note afterward and suggests count_only=true for accurate counts without a result set. It provides useful usage context, though it does not explicitly contrast with search_notes or other note-related tools.

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