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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false but do not convey the staged-approval workflow; the description adds the crucial fact that nothing changes until the user approves and that a review link is returned. It does not mention the retry/operationKey semantics that make the call idempotent in practice, which the schema covers instead.

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 short sentences with the operation front-loaded and the approval gate immediately after; every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return value (a review link) and the safety model (no change until approval), which is what an agent needs before calling. It leaves the post-approval path slightly ambiguous but is otherwise sufficient for a three-parameter note tool.

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 67%: 'id' and 'operationKey' are documented in the schema while 'text' carries only length bounds. The description adds a modest hint about what 'text' should contain (what was said on a call), but does not explain lead-ID sourcing or note formatting beyond the schema, so the 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?

Uses a specific verb+resource: 'Prepare adding a note to one lead's timeline,' which distinguishes this from update_pipeline_lead or add_to_pipeline by making clear it appends a note rather than creating or modifying a lead. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 example 'such as what was said on a call' implies the intended use case and the phrasing 'Prepare adding' signals this is the two-step path, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no direct routing away from update_pipeline_lead or get_pipeline_lead.

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