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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false. Beyond that, the description adds genuine behavioral context: the saved note is treated as framing for the next battlecard rewrite and is explicitly never consumed as a verified fact, which materially affects how an agent should phrase content. It stops short of stating auth requirements or what the note does if a battlecard is regenerated.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. The prose leans metaphorical ("no page says") rather than plain, which costs a bit of immediate comprehension but not length.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not explain return values or side-effect safety, and it usefully covers consumption semantics. However, for a tool with four near-duplicate note-adding siblings, the absence of any routing guidance leaves a real gap for correct tool selection.

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%: body's length bounds and plain-text nature and competitor_id's origin from list_competitors are all documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 conveys a write action tied to competitor battlecards ("Adds what the team knows about a core competitor", "the next rewrite of its battlecard"), but it is phrased metaphorically and never plainly says it attaches a note to a battlecard's record. It also does nothing to separate itself from sibling note-writing tools like add_signal_note and add_digest_note.

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?

There is a faint hint about the kind of content this accepts ("what the team knows... that no page says"), but no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives such as add_signal_note or add_digest_note despite several near-identical siblings.

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