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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does disclose the one non-obvious side effect: mentioned users receive a CRM notification. It omits whether the comment is editable or deletable afterwards, whether the acting user's identity is recorded, and any permission requirements for commenting on a lead.

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 tight sentences, with the essential visibility constraint and the notification side effect front-loaded. Nothing is padding.

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 three-parameter comment-creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers who sees it, what side effect fires, and where mention ids come from. The main remaining gap is the return value or confirmation behavior, though with no output schema the agent can tolerate that.

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 only 33%, so the description has to compensate, and it does: it explains that mentions must be user ids obtained from crm_list_workspace_members, which is more actionable than the schema's bare "User ids to @mention". The 'id' parameter is only implied by "lead card" and 'body' semantics are only sketched by "internal note", keeping it below 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?

"Internal team note on the lead card (not visible to the lead)" states a specific verb and resource, and the visibility qualifier separates it from lead-facing siblings like crm_reply_to_lead and crm_send_email_to_lead. It stops short of naming a sibling outright, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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 "not visible to the lead" clause implies the internal-versus-external channel choice, and pointing at crm_list_workspace_members as the source of mention ids is genuinely useful routing. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and the comment-versus-reply decision is left to inference.

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