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

Annotations already disclose write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds that the note is recalled by the growth plan and consultant, hinting at shared persistence, but omits auth needs, rate limits, and duplicate handling.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words, though the parenthetical is slightly awkward.

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 write tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description provides adequate purpose and content guidance. It doesn't explain return behavior or storage details, but none are critical here.

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 the two parameters are documented. The description's parenthetical '(results, context, constraints)' adds content guidance for the note parameter beyond the schema's 'The note to remember', though it says nothing additional about business_id.

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 'Save' and resource 'a note about the business', and identifies the audience (growth plan and consultant). Clear and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools (none of which do the same).

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?

Implies the tool should be used to record results, context, and constraints for future reference, but does not state when not to use it or name alternatives. Usage is inferable but not explicitly guided.

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