ghl_object_search_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the required OAuth scope (notes.readonly), the version header, and the source spec. It does not, however, describe result behavior or pagination semantics.

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?

Three short lines with the operation front-loaded and zero filler. The endpoint/version/source metadata is compact and arguably useful for debugging, though it occupies space that could have gone to usage guidance.

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 paginated search over a nested request body with no output schema, the description says nothing about what comes back, how pagination and count interact, or how this differs from sibling note-retrieval tools. The schema carries parameter detail, but the agent is left to guess at results and tool selection.

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% and every nested body property (skip, limit, query, sortBy, sources, relations, includeRelationRecords, etc.) already carries its own description and example. The description adds no parameter semantics at all, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 title plus description name a specific verb and resource ('Search Notes') and add the concrete endpoint POST /notes/search, so an agent knows exactly what operation this is. It stops short of distinguishing this from the many sibling note tools (ghl_object_get_note, ghl_contact_get_all_notes, ghl_object_search_records), so an agent must infer which note-search to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance anywhere in the description, and no alternative is named among the numerous note and object-search siblings. The OAuth scope line hints at a permission requirement but tells the agent nothing about when this tool applies.

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