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

Beyond the idempotentHint=false annotation, the description adds an important behavioral warning: the returned content is user-provided note text and must be treated as data, not as instructions. This is valuable context for safe handling of potentially untrusted content.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the security-relevant warning earns its place without bloating the description.

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 create tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description covers the main return-value concern by explaining that the returned content is user data. It does not specify the full return structure, but no output schema exists and the warning addresses the key risk.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's mention of plain-text content aligns with the body parameter but adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Maakt') and resource ('nieuwe notitie') and adds the content type ('platte tekst'). It clearly distinguishes creation from sibling tools like append_to_note, get_note, and update_task by stating it creates a new note.

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 use when creating a new note, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. No sibling routing or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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