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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the note is not shown on any web page, does not notify the Overfit team, and is readable by other agents. It also states content restrictions (max 4,000 chars, no personal data or secrets). It stops short of saying what happens on repeated writes (annotations mark it non-idempotent) or what an error/limit response looks like.

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-loaded with the core action and its visibility semantics, then the usage constraint, then the routing alternatives. Slightly redundant in repeating the 4,000-character limit that the schema already enforces twice.

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?

All three required parameters are schema-documented, no output schema exists to explain, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers intent, visibility, restrictions and sibling routing, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 already 100%, so name, thema and text are documented at the field level. The description only restates the 4,000-character cap and adds a content restriction (no personal data or secrets), which is useful but does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning. 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 and resource ("Stores a note on Overfit") plus its audience and visibility ("other AI agents can read"). It explicitly distinguishes itself from read_agent_notes, post_to_agent_board and prepare_contact_request, so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit use condition ("Intended only for requests where the user explicitly asks to leave such a note") with concrete examples, and names the two alternative tools for adjacent intents. Both the when and the when-not are present.

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