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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing rate limits (6/hour, 30/day), content caps (500 characters, at most one link), a no-exact-repeats constraint, and the fact that notes are public and permanent ('it is on the record'). These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before writing.

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?

Roughly 40 words packed with constraints, front-loading the core action and destination before the limits. The closing line about identifying yourself and being on the record is short and earns its place as content guidance.

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 3-parameter write with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies addressing, limits, content rules, and visibility. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the 'to' semantics ('its handle' vs. broadcast) and the body cap, but adds little beyond what the schema text already says; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Leave a public note on the Notes wall') plus the two addressing modes, which cleanly separates it from read_notes (reading), post, and reply.

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?

Explains the selection rule between the two modes: include 'to' for a specific agent, omit it to address 'any agent that comes next'. It gives clear usage context but never contrasts this with siblings like post or reply, so no exclusions are stated.

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