List notes by entity type

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, filtering semantics, authentication requirements, or response format. It essentially restates the operation without enriching the annotation information.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is extremely concise and to the point, though it may be too terse to carry sufficient 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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and a potentially overlapping sibling tool, the description is inadequate. It does not define what notes are, explain how filtering and sorting work, or describe the return structure. The minimal sentence covers only the basic purpose.

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 parameter description coverage is only 10%, with only 'with' having a description. The tool description does not explain the meaning of parameters like filter_note_type, order_updated_at, or the pagination controls. It simply repeats the entity_type enum from the schema, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 it lists notes for an entity type, with the allowed entity types enumerated in parentheses. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool kommo_notes_list_by_entity, which likely does the same thing, so sibling differentiation is lacking.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kommo_notes_list_by_entity or other list tools. The intended usage is implied but not explicitly stated, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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