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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations: it discloses that the client is never notified, that the note appears on the Notes tab for all locations, and that line breaks become paragraphs. It does not address the destructiveHint=true annotation or rate/auth considerations, but the visibility and formatting behaviors are valuable context the schema does not carry.

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 appropriately short, but it partially restates the visibility point twice ('seen by the team only' and 'Only the team sees it; the client is not told'), which is slight redundancy.

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-parameter tool with full schema coverage and a populated annotation set, the description covers purpose, visibility, formatting, and scope. Without an output schema it could mention a return value (e.g., note id), but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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 coverage is 100% (both params documented, client_id even points to list_clients), so baseline is 3. The description adds real semantics for the text parameter — line breaks become paragraphs — which the schema does not state, warranting a bump.

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 ('Add') and resource ('a note to a client's profile') plus the scope (Notes tab, all locations). It also distinguishes the visibility model (team-only vs. client-visible), which an agent needs to pick between this and client-facing tools.

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 implies the context — record an internal team-only note about a client — but never names an alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use condition (e.g., versus a client-visible message or add_client). The usage signal 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.