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

Annotations already declare the write, open-world, idempotent profile, and the description layers on genuinely useful behavior: it is free, limited to one per note, and the note's author is notified on their next visit. It does not disclose the response shape or what happens when the one-per-note limit is exceeded, but the added side-effect context is solid.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the cost, limit, and side effect follow in order of importance.

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 two-parameter write with no output schema and solid annotations, the description covers action, cost, frequency limit, and the visible side effect on another user. Only the return/failure behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no further semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names a specific action (toasting) and its object (a note on the wall), using the same metaphor as the tool name to make the effect concrete. It is distinguishable from sibling verbs like leave_note or read_wall, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

'Free; one per note' implies the context of use (reacting to a note you liked, without cost) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and never names an alternative tool such as leave_note for a different kind of reaction.

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