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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying newest-first ordering, tag inclusion, and the required 'read' scope.

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 a single concise sentence that communicates the resource, ordering, additional returned data, and scope requirement with no wasted words.

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 tool, the description covers the main result content and order. However, it omits parameter selection details and any sense of the return structure, which is more impactful given there is no output schema.

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%, and the description does not explain the two parameters. It does not clarify whether email, client_id, or both are needed, how they relate, or any format requirements. The description adds almost no value for parameter understanding.

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 identifies the resource: staff notes on a client's MarianaTek profile, with newest-first ordering and tags included. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_client or add_client_note, though it does not explicitly state how it differs from them.

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 the tool is for retrieving staff notes and tags for a client, which gives reasonable usage context. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives such as get_client or add_client_note.

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