get_tenant_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List notes' implying a read-only operation, but it does not describe any side effects, required permissions, ordering, or pagination behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 very concise (two lines), which is good for readability. However, it sacrifices necessary details about parameters and behavior. It could be restructured to include parameter explanations without becoming overly long.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not hint at the structure of the returned notes. With 0% parameter documentation and no annotations, the description fails to provide a complete picture for an agent to use the tool effectively. It lacks context on filtering, sorting, or the nature of the notes.

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 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no explanation for the parameters beyond the fact that tenant_id identifies the tenant. The optional facility_id parameter is not explained, leaving ambiguity about its purpose.

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 for a tenant. It uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'notes attached to a tenant', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_tenant or search_tenants. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., all notes or recent ones).

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 provides a contextual use case ('what has the manager said about this tenant?'), but it does not mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives from the sibling list. The guidance is present but limited.

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