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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate that it is read-only. The description adds behavioral context: it is a reference/checklist that provides five sections, an example, and misleading lead statuses. It does not describe any side effects, which is consistent with readOnlyHint. It could add more detail about what the tool returns (e.g., a checklist, an example, a list of statuses), but the description is not contradictory and adds some value beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('what a complete CRM note carries') and then lists the key components (five sections, example, misleading lead statuses). It is concise and structured, though it is a bit dense and could be split into two sentences for readability. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it tells the agent what the tool covers and why it matters (misleading lead statuses). However, it does not specify the exact five sections or the format of the output, which an agent might need to know to decide if this tool answers a specific question. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain parameters. It explains the content of the tool's output/reference material, which is the only meaningful semantic content. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource ('a complete CRM note') and a clear purpose: to convey what a complete CRM note carries after a sales call or text thread, in five sections, with an example and lead statuses that mislead managers. It is not a tautology and distinguishes itself from siblings like score_crm_note (which scores a note) and write_follow_up_texts (which writes texts). It could be slightly clearer about whether it is a reference/checklist tool versus an action tool, but the verb 'carries' and the structure imply a reference/educational tool.

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 description implies usage: it is a reference for what a complete CRM note carries, useful after a sales call or text thread, and it warns about lead statuses that mislead managers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like score_crm_note or conversation_signals. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer it is a reference/checklist, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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