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

Annotations already declare write, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: no account is required, reply_url receives each desk reply when https, and the call returns a conversation_id that can extend the thread.

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 front-loaded and has no filler; every sentence adds either scope, account requirements, or return/threading behavior. It is compact and easy to scan.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: purpose, no account required, reply_url handling, and the return value. It does not fully document all parameters, but the core call semantics are clear.

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 only 40%, so the description should carry more of the parameter burden. It clarifies reply_url and conversation_id, but largely repeats the schema's own descriptions and leaves kind, title, and text undocumented.

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 and resource: sends a product note to Widely about a missing capability, complaint, or use case. The resource is distinct from the read sibling get_product_note, but the description does not explicitly differentiate it from ask_support or send_message.

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 note types provide context for when to use the tool, and the conversation_id sentence explains how to continue a thread. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over ask_support or send_message, nor any when-not-to-use condition.

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