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

Annotations cover safety hints but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it discloses that for_provider reaches another person, that confirmation is on by default and can be toggled, that it returns a note_id, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is required. This is rich, non-redundant behavioral disclosure for a tool with an external side effect.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the provider-reaching concept is stated twice ('so it reaches another person' then 'Reaches other people: confirm...'), and the opening list of note types is partially restated by the following sentence. The redundancy costs some efficiency without obscuring meaning.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the target booking, the three note types and their audience, the return value (note_id), the confirmation behavior, and the auth requirement.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic meaning to the type parameter by explaining the visibility consequences of each enum value rather than just listing them. booking_id and text rely on the schema, which already documents them adequately.

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 ('Add a note to a booking') and enumerates the three note subtypes the tool can create. An agent can clearly tell what this does and which of the three note categories it targets 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?

Explains when each type applies -- private_booking/private_customer are team-only, for_provider is shown to the provider -- and gives a conditional instruction to confirm before provider-reaching calls. It stops short of naming alternative tools, but the type-selection guidance is explicit and actionable.

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