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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true, so the description must carry the behavioral burden and adds little beyond the REST endpoint. It never says whether the note is append-only or editable, who can see it, what permissions are required, or what happens on failure. The endpoint string is the only extra context.

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 short sentences, action front-loaded, no filler or redundancy. Every token earns its place.

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 two-parameter append tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It omits any note about the response or about the job needing to exist, which keeps it just short of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both job_id and content are documented, with minLength constraints), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, length, or content-convention guidance beyond it — the 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: 'Add a text note to a job.' There is no sibling that adds notes, so no differentiation is needed or attempted; the API endpoint line reinforces what the tool does. Clear, but it does nothing to situate itself among the create/list/get family.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. job must exist, required permissions), and no mention of alternatives such as updating a job or leaving a line-item comment. The agent must infer all context.

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