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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description usefully adds that the note is visible on the contact, notifies no one (no email/SMS side effect), requires no confirmation, and returns an ID. These are real behavioral facts beyond the annotations, though error/idempotency behavior is absent.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the key action stated first and the notification/auth caveats after. The first two sentences are partly redundant ('Add a note to a contact record' vs 'Adds a note to one contact record'), a minor waste in an otherwise tight definition.

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 2-param write tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete: what it does, side effects, auth requirements. The only soft spot is 'returns its ID', which is ambiguous about whether it is the note ID or contact ID (and no output schema clarifies it).

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%, with body and contact_id both documented (contact_id even points to find_contact/create_contact for sourcing). The description adds only the 'one contact record' scope, no additional syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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 concrete verb+resource ('Add a note to a contact record') and confirms it acts on a single record, which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_contact and find_contact that operate on the contact itself. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so it does not reach full sibling differentiation.

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?

Implies the use case (attach a free-text note to a contact) and gives an approval-related signal ('it runs without asking'), plus a prerequisite (needs the user's Cotlet API key with app access). However there are no other note tools in the AccuLynx sibling set, and no explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisites for the contact_id.

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