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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is write-tier and may require approval. It also mentions that an empty string clears the note. However, it does not explain whether notes are appended or replaced, nor does it describe any side effects or error scenarios beyond the approval note.

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 concise: two clear sentences plus a brief approval note. Every sentence adds value—purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral context—without any redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (no output schema, 3 well-described parameters), the description covers the main purpose and usage context. It could be improved by mentioning the return value (e.g., success confirmation) or potential errors, but it is sufficiently complete for the typical use case.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as 'empty string to clear' which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action 'Add or update a note on a specific transaction,' identifying both the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_transactions and search_transactions by specifying the operation on individual transaction notes.

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 provides a clear usage sequence: 'Use after pulling transactions to annotate individual items.' It also includes important context about write-tier approval requirements, helping the agent understand when manager approval may be needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool over alternatives.

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