fcrm contact notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds some context (pagination, search support, creator info) but doesn't explain pagination limits, auth enforcement details beyond the capability name, or response structure. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and additional details follow succinctly. The capability and enforcement notes are separate and slightly verbose but still earned. Overall efficient with minimal 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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the basics but is incomplete. It doesn't specify return format, sorting, or the exact behavior of include_id beyond what the schema mentions. The ambiguous capability note adds uncertainty rather than clarity.

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 all six parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description mentions searching by title and pagination, which maps to some parameters, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a paginated list of notes for a contact') and adds scope details like title search and creator inclusion. It's clear but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'fcrm_add_contact_note' or 'fcrm_contact_emails' to help the agent choose.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It mentions a required capability but frames it ambiguously ('which one applies depends on the action being performed'), leaving the agent to guess between fcrm_read_contacts and fcrm_manage_contacts.

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