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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open world), but the description adds real context the annotations don't carry: the private/admin-only vs customer-visible distinction and, critically, that customer notes are emailed. That undisclosed side effect is a genuine behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the privacy/visibility nuance. Nothing to trim.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the action and its key side effect (email). The only minor gap is the absence of any note about the response or permission requirements.

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 all four parameters (including customer_note's default and semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description's privacy/email contrast mirrors the schema's own customer_note documentation, adding no syntax or meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (note to a WooCommerce order), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the read-side sibling woo_list_order_notes, but the verb+resource is 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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: it never says when to add a note versus listing existing ones (woo_list_order_notes), nor mentions prerequisites like which order states warrant a note. The email side effect is described, but that is behavior, not usage routing.

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