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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the audience/visibility boundary ('your team sees it; the seller does not'), the default approval behavior ('runs without asking by default'), and the auth prerequisite ('Cotlet API key with access to this app'). That is real behavioral content not present in structured fields.

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 and short, but the visibility point is made twice ('visible to your team' and 'Your team sees it; the seller does not'), which is redundant. One of those sentences does not fully earn its place.

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 simple two-parameter note tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, audience, auth, and default approval behavior — enough for correct invocation. It could be tightened but nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both lead_id and text. The description adds no format, length, or content guidance beyond what the schema provides. 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 lead') and immediately scopes it ('under your name'). Within the resimpli sibling family there is no competing note tool, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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?

It conveys useful context — the note is internal (team sees it, seller does not) — which implies when this is appropriate versus a seller-facing message, but it never explicitly says when to use this vs alternatives such as resimpli_send_sms or a status update. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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