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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds useful context about what a note is meant to capture, but says nothing about permissions, persistence, or effects on the deal record — modest value beyond structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead and the examples trail. Efficient, though the examples are arguably content-flavor rather than necessary detail.

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?

For a simple two-parameter note-creation tool with an existing safety profile in annotations and no output schema, the intent is adequately conveyed. The missing piece is any handling of the deal identifier and confirmation of what calling it changes.

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 0%, so both parameters rely on the description. It clarifies the intended content of 'note' (what was said, requests, follow-up timing) but gives no guidance on 'opportunity_id' format or how to obtain a valid deal id — a partial, not full, compensation for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a note to a deal.' That is unambiguous and distinguishable from the other crm_* siblings (which operate on opportunities, pipelines, etc.), though it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The content examples hint at intended scenarios (call notes, follow-ups) but the agent gets no routing logic.

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