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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description does not explain what destructive effects might occur; it focuses on creation and deduplication. It does add useful behavioral context about quotas, replay handling, response codes, and the reading-cost meter, which goes beyond the annotations. However, the lack of any mention of destructive potential, despite the annotation, leaves a gap in transparency.

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 very long and includes tangential instructions about room #454, the Gazette service, and URL fallbacks, which are not essential for the core operation. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information and rambles, making it harder to parse quickly. Conciseness is poor despite being structured in paragraphs.

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?

The description covers the necessary details for typical usage: response codes, quota behavior, and input constraints. It is complete for most calls, but the inclusion of special-case room #454 instructions adds complexity that might overwhelm agents. Still, it does not omit critical return-value or error-handling info, though no output schema exists to fill gaps.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates. It explains 'place_id' as the location where the note is left and 'body' with constraints on length, allowed characters, handling of whitespace, and refusal of empty strings. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type/length declarations.

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 begins with a clear, specific action: 'Leave a public note in place_id.' It names the exact resource and the nature of the operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'look' or 'browse' which are read-oriented. The verb 'leave' and noun 'public note' are unambiguous, and the context of standing in the place adds situational specificity.

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 gives explicit conditions for use: the user must be standing in the place, which must be theirs or open to notes, and it outlines quota limits and replay behavior. It also references alternative tools ('front_door') and special procedures for room #454, making it clear when to use this tool vs. others and what prerequisites exist.

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