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

Annotations only declare the generic safe-write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false); the description adds substantive behavior: no personal data is stored, requests are counted but not shown publicly, they only influence future additions, and coverage is not guaranteed. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot 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?

Five short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (action, precondition, cardinality, data retention, outcome expectation), with the purpose front-loaded and no filler.

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 non-destructive, non-idempotent submission tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, data handling and expected outcome, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 chain, item and note with limits and examples. The description adds only the reassurance that just those three values are stored, which is useful but does not extend parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Tell the site operator that a restaurant chain or menu item is missing') and names the exact siblings (search_menu / list_chains) it complements, so an agent can place it precisely in the workflow.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('only after search_menu / list_chains could not find it AND the user actually wanted it') plus a cardinality rule ('one request per chain or item'), which covers both when to use it and when not to.

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