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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds two things beyond that: the submission is queued (implying asynchronous handling, not immediate processing) and web addresses are rejected as a validation rule. It does not say who sees the note, whether duplicates are possible given the non-idempotent hint, or what happens after queueing.

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 with zero filler, front-loading what the tool does and immediately following with the one hard constraint. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and parameters are fully covered by the schema. However, for a queueing write tool the definition leaves the post-submission behavior and the reason for the web-address rejection unstated, which is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether to retry or how to phrase the call.

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 100% schema description coverage the schema already documents all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the note constraint ("short", no web address) but adds no format, length, or validation detail beyond what the schema's note field already states.

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?

"Queues a short note from a prospective customer" gives a specific verb (queues) and resource (lead note), and the phrase "prospective customer" distinguishes it from siblings like open_support_request or submit_referral. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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 mention of "a prospective customer" implies the sales/lead context in which this should be used, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative among the sibling tools. The agent must infer the boundary against open_support_request and submit_referral.

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