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

Annotations already declare non-destructive and not-read-only, but the description adds real context beyond them: nothing is sent to the tenant ('internal'), the note is attributed 'under your user', it behaves append-only ('one more note corrects a mistake'), and it needs a Cotlet API key with app access. Some of the safety framing ('runs without asking first') overlaps destructiveHint=false, keeping it just short of 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?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the text is repetitive: 'Add a note to the History/Notes of a tenant' is restated, and 'nothing is sent' appears twice. The redundancy costs space without adding 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 two-required-parameter note-creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect, attribution, notification behavior, and auth requirement. It omits only minor details like return confirmation, so it is nearly complete.

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 both parameters (tenant_id, note) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a mild attribution detail ('under your user') and no new syntax or format information, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Add a note to the History/Notes of a tenant') with scope qualifiers ('of a tenant', 'under your user'). This clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like rent-manager_get_history and rent-manager_get_tenant without the agent needing 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?

Usage is implied: it adds a note and is safe to run autonomously ('runs without asking first'). However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., get_history, send_text) or any exclusions, so guidance stays at the implied level.

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