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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the description's non-actionable nature aligns. It adds context about content (five sections, example, misleading statuses) but doesn't disclose whether it returns a static guide or dynamic analysis. With readOnlyHint, a baseline 3 is appropriate; description 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 one sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose (what a complete CRM note carries), and efficiently lists content (five sections, example, statuses). It's concise without waste, though slightly dense.

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-param, read-only reference tool, the description is fairly complete: it indicates the tool outputs guidance on CRM notes, including an example and warning about misleading statuses. It could mention whether it includes a checklist format, but enough is present for an agent to understand its role.

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 parameter semantics are not applicable. A baseline of 4 is given for zero-param tools, and the description clarifies what the tool provides despite having no inputs.

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 the tool defines what a complete CRM note carries, which is a clear purpose. It doesn't explicitly say it's a reference/guide, but the context signals (0 params, readOnlyHint) imply it, and it distinguishes from siblings like score_crm_note (which scores) and crm_glossary (which defines terms).

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 it's for understanding what a complete CRM note looks like, but doesn't explicitly say when to use it vs alternatives like score_crm_note or check_follow_up_text. It mentions lead statuses that mislead managers, hinting at a cautionary use, but lacks explicit routing.

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