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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that with pricing behavior ('$0.01 per call; nothing if it fails'), but it omits whether a note appends to existing notes or replaces them, and whether a new rating overwrites a prior rating — important for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the cost caveat appended. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers cost and the two operations but leaves the append-vs-overwrite question and the minimum-call requirement (at least one of note/rating) unresolved. Adequate to invoke, not complete enough to predict the effect.

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%, so the description must carry the load; it does identify all three parameters (applicant, note, rating) and even restates the 1-5 rating range that the schema enforces. It adds nothing about the note's 5000-character limit, whether both fields are optional, or what happens if only applicant_id is passed.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add a note to an applicant') plus the secondary action (rate 1 to 5), which maps cleanly to the tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from note-adding siblings like crm_add_note or hubspot_add_note, relying on the hiring domain prefix to do that work.

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 'and/or' phrasing implies at least one of note or rating must be supplied, which is genuinely useful usage context. However, there is no statement of when to use this versus crm_add_note or hubspot_add_note, and no prerequisites (e.g., applicant must exist or be in a certain stage) are mentioned.

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