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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and non-idempotency profile is covered. The description's real contribution is the visibility guarantee — "seen by the team only" — which tells the agent the note is internal and not client-facing, a fact not encoded in any structured field. It stops short of saying whether notes can later be edited or removed.

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?

A single clause pair with no filler, and the strongest fact (team-only visibility) is placed as the trailing qualifier where it is still immediately readable. It is tightly sized for the surface it covers.

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-parameter additive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is created, on which entity, and who can see it. It omits any confirmation of what is returned (e.g. a note id) and whether the write is reversible, which leaves a modest gap for a mutation tool.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema (length bounds, id pattern, and the pointer to list_clients). The description adds no syntax, formatting, or content guidance beyond the schema, 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?

States a concrete verb+resource ("Add a note to a client's profile") and names the target entity unambiguously. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_client or list_clients, though it does not explicitly contrast with any of them since no other note-manipulation tool exists.

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?

The purpose implies when to reach for it (annotating a client record for internal recordkeeping), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing a valid client_id from list_clients), and no named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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