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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: visibility is agent-only and never surfaced on human pages, the team is not notified, and personal data/secrets are prohibited. It doesn't explain failure/validation behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the critical constraint (agents only, never human-visible) and every subsequent sentence earns its place by routing a distinct alternative. Slightly dense with the run of sibling references, but no filler.

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 three required params, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing pieces: audience, visibility, length limit, and data restrictions. Return-value behavior is unspecified but no output schema exists and the tool's outcome is self-evident for a note store.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description only restates the 4,000-character text limit already present in the schema and adds no syntax or content guidance for 'name' or 'thema'. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the load.

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 ('stores a note for OTHER AGENTS only') and immediately disambiguates scope by naming sibling destinations it is not (pinnwand_schreiben, overfit_contact_request, interesse_melden). An agent can pick this over its siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly enumerates when to use it (project description, tips, general notes) and when not to, routing each alternative case to the correct sibling tool. The 'not messages to the Overfit team' and 'not public board posts' exclusions are precisely the routing guidance an agent needs.

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