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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing team-only visibility, the 2000-character limit, optional recordId context, and the non-idempotent behavior with timeout risk and duplicate-creation potential. This gives the agent critical operational knowledge that the annotations do not cover.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose, visibility scope, constraints, an alternative retrieval path, and idempotency warning without filler. The most important operational warning (non-idempotency) is clearly highlighted at the end and the content is front-loaded.

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 operation with three parameters and detailed annotations, this description is complete. It covers what the note is, who can see it, how long it can be, how to optionally link a record, where to read existing notes, and how to handle retries safely. No essential guidance is missing.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning for recordId ('as context') and explicitly restates the character limit, adding a bit of purpose beyond the schema definitions. Still, the schema does the heavy lifting, so this is not a 5.

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 the exact action ('Write an internal follow-up note') and the specific resource ('a lead of the current team'), and adds the meaningful scope of being visible only to team members, never to the respondent. This distinguishes the tool clearly from other lead-related or comment-related tools in the sibling list.

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 communicates the intended audience and context, and points the agent to retrieve existing notes using get_lead(includeComments: true). It lacks an explicit 'use this tool when... not when...' statement, but the internal-vs-respondent distinction and the retry warning effectively convey appropriate and inappropriate use.

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