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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the write nature is covered by structured data. The description adds the underlying API endpoint, which is useful context, but says nothing about auth needs, whether the note is appended vs. replaces anything, or rate limits. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 compact sentences, front-loading what is added and to what, followed by the endpoint. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 four-parameter write tool with complete schema coverage and a safety annotation, the description supplies enough to invoke correctly. It is slightly thin on the object/id pairing and HTML body handling, but those are covered by the schema, and no output schema exists to explain.

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 four parameters (id, body, title, object enum) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'title + body', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 (add) and resource (note), enumerates the five parent record types it can attach to, and maps to a concrete endpoint (POST /<Object>/{id}/Notes). No sibling in the list adds notes, so it is trivially distinguishable from create_/update_/get_ tools.

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 'add a note to a Contact, Organisation, ...' but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. For a niche write tool with no close siblings, implied context is adequate but not rich.

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