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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no note on what the draft contains, whether it is persisted, or what jurisdiction/format assumptions apply — and does not contradict the annotations.

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?

It is short, but shortness here is under-specification rather than efficiency: a three-word fragment carries no front-loaded information an agent can act on.

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?

With four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations about content semantics, the description should explain what the draft includes and what inputs control. Instead it provides nothing, leaving the agent to guess entirely from the tool name.

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?

Four required parameters (borrower, lender, amount, due) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about them. Types are bare strings, so even expected formats (date syntax, currency) are left entirely undocumented.

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 "Promissory note draft" merely restates the tool name and the annotation title, adding no verb, scope, or output information. An agent cannot tell from this text what drafting entails or how it differs from siblings like business_nda_draft or business_lease_draft.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The only signal is the implicit topic match with the tool name; nothing tells the agent whether to prefer this over contract_pack or nda_draft.

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