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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false; the description adds the meaningful consequence that each call creates a new note (so retries duplicate data) and names the endpoint. It does not cover auth scopes or what happens on invalid household_id, but the non-idempotency warning is genuine added value.

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?

Three terse sentences, zero filler, with the WRITE classification and target resource front-loaded before the side-effect note and endpoint.

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 small write tool with no output schema, the definition covers the mutation, its non-idempotent nature, and the target resource. Missing only minor edges: household_id semantics and any auth/permission expectation.

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 75% and the schema documents body, title, and important with constraints; the description only alludes to the household via the path template. With household_id undocumented in both schema and description, baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('add a note to a household's record in Funraise') and disambiguates from the sibling supporter-note tool by naming the household scope. The HTTP endpoint reinforces the target resource.

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?

Usage is implied by the household framing, and 'Creates a new note each call' hints at repeat-call consequences, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus funraise_create_supporter_note or funraise_create_interaction, nor any stated prerequisites such as the household existing.

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