List contact notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the read-only nature and potential for unbounded results. The description adds the useful behavioral detail 'newest first' (ordering). It does not explain pagination or response structure, but for a simple read operation this is adequate. No contradiction with 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?

A single, clear sentence that immediately states the action and ordering. No fluff, perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and supportive annotations, the description explains the core behavior and ordering. It does not describe the return payload structure, but for a list operation that may be acceptable since the agent only needs to invoke it correctly. Still, there is no mention of potential pagination or limits, which could matter for 'all 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single contactId parameter. The phrase 'notes logged on a contact' implies contactId identifies the contact, but it does not explicitly state that or provide format details. This is weak compensation for the zero 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 the verb 'List' with a specific resource 'all notes logged on a contact' and adds ordering 'newest first'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_get_contact_note (single note) and ghl_list_contact_tasks (different resource). The purpose is 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 implies usage: use this when you need all notes for a contact, as opposed to a specific note (get_contact_note) or creating/updating notes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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