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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that notes are plain text and 'appear on the entity's timeline alongside calls, texts, and emails,' which is useful. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as whether the note is immutable, whether it can be edited later, or what the tool returns.

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 two sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds value: what the note is, where it appears, and the critical parameter constraint.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers its purpose, target entities, note formatting, timeline placement, and the one-of constraint. It does not mention return values, but no output schema exists; for a create tool this is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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 only 25%, with only 'body' documented. The description compensates by clarifying that notes are plain text and by imposing the critical 'EXACTLY ONE of contactId / companyId / dealId' constraint that the schema does not encode.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a note to a contact, company, or deal.' It clearly differentiates this create operation from sibling tools like notes_update, notes_list, and notes_delete.

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 clearly states the intended use case and adds a hard usage rule: 'Provide EXACTLY ONE of contactId / companyId / dealId.' It does not explicitly mention when to use alternative note tools, but the create-vs-manage distinction is clear from the verb and context.

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