ghl_contact_get_all_notes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the endpoint and OAuth scope 'contacts.readonly', which is consistent and provides minor additional behavioral context (authentication requirement). No mention of pagination or response structure.

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 brief and front-loaded with the tool's title. It includes necessary technical details (endpoint, version, OAuth) without redundancy. However, the endpoint path may be unnecessary for an AI agent and could be omitted for brevity.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify the return format (e.g., list of note objects) or whether pagination is supported. An agent might need to infer behavior from the name and annotations.

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 coverage is 100% and the description does not add parameter information beyond what the schema provides. The schema already includes an example and description for contactId, so the description offers no extra semantic value.

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 'Get All Notes' and provides the endpoint details, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling note tools like ghl_contact_get_note or ghl_contact_create_note, which limits distinction.

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 alternative contact note tools. Sibling tools exist for creating, deleting, updating, and retrieving individual notes, but the description does not help an agent choose the correct one.

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