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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: both facings are kept and disagreements are surfaced rather than resolved. It does not cover auth requirements or what happens if the same note is recorded twice, but the annotations already establish the safety profile.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with the second sentence providing only necessary behavioral context. No wasted phrasing.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the essential purpose, the LP/founder facing distinction, and the non-resolution behavior, but is slightly light on when to choose this recording tool over related fundraising note tools.

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?

The description adds semantic meaning for the facing attribute ('to LPs or to founders'), the claim, and the document date. However, with only 50% schema description coverage and a nested note object, it leaves firmName, sourceUrl, companyId, and the id wrapper without descriptive explanation.

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 gives a specific verb (Record) and resource (what a firm claims about its own mandate, to LPs or to founders, with the document and its date). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling list_mandate_notes or from fundraising_record_category_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?

Usage is implied by the scenario of LP letters disagreeing with front pages, but the description never states when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as record_category_note or list_mandate_notes. There are no explicit exclusions or routing cues.

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