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

Annotations only declare it is not read-only and not idempotent; the description goes further by warning that repetition can duplicate, stating 'Account access applies', and clarifying scope exclusions ('no original-author-only restriction or board transition', 'No external publication or Scan launch'). This is rich side-effect and permission disclosure beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loads the action and return value, then packs constraints into short clauses with no filler. It is dense but every sentence carries an actionable constraint.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be documented, and the description still covers prerequisites, duplication risk, access, and scope limits. It is complete for correct invocation, with only the missing explicit alternative-naming as a minor gap.

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 67%: siteId and recommendationId already carry descriptions pointing to their source tools, and body is constrained by minLength 1. The description only restates the nonblank body rule, adding little param meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 fits.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create one note') and adds the return payload ('saved note and stable activityId'). It implicitly separates from update_recommendation_note by being the creation path, but does not name alternatives explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete condition for retry ('After uncertainty read list_recommendation_notes before retrying') and names the sibling to consult, plus the nonblank-body prerequisite. It lacks explicit when-to-use-vs-other-creation-tools framing, so 4 rather than 5.

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