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

The annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is minimal. The description adds valuable behavioral context: notes are visible to team members only, never to the respondent, max length is 2000 characters, and the operation is not idempotent — a timeout may still mean success, so blind retries can create duplicates. This goes well beyond 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?

The description is efficiently structured: purpose and visibility first, then constraint, optional parameter context, read alternative, and idempotency warning. Every sentence adds information and no space is wasted.

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 write tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the operation does, visibility rules, constraints, how to read existing notes, and the retry hazard. The agent has enough information to correctly invoke the tool and handle unusual outcomes.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra nuance by explaining that recordId is optional 'context' about the submission, which clarifies its role more practically than the schema's phrasing. It also reinforces the body length limit in line with the schema's maxLength.

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 identifies the action ('Write an internal follow-up note on a lead') and the resource ('lead of the current team'), while distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_lead or add_question by specifying it is an internal, team-only comment. The purpose is immediately evident and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool and points to an alternative for related behavior: 'Read existing notes with get_lead(includeComments: true).' It also gives important retry guidance by warning about the non-idempotent timeout behavior and how to handle it, leaving no ambiguity about when or how to retry.

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