List appointment notes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a read-only operation, and the description's 'List' wording is consistent. The description adds the appointment-scoping detail but does not disclose behaviors such as pagination behavior, ordering, or response shape.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb and object immediately and earns its place without redundancy.

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 read-only list operation, the description, schema, and annotations provide enough to make a basic call. However, with no output schema, no return-format details, and no usage guidance, the description is only minimally complete rather than thorough.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides context for appointmentId via 'calendar appointment' but says nothing about limit or offset semantics. The schema shows types and defaults, but the description adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('notes attached to a calendar appointment'). This distinguishes it from related tools like ghl_list_contact_notes, since the scope is explicitly appointment-scoped rather than contact-scoped.

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 implies use when an agent needs notes for a calendar appointment, but it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to choose. Sibling tools exist for contact notes, but no comparison or routing is offered.

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