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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden, and it does add real context: it labels the operation as a write, names the underlying endpoint (POST /api/v1/constituents/{constituent_id}/notes), and discloses which fields are mandatory. It stops short of describing auth requirements or the response/confirmation behavior.

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 dense sentences plus an endpoint reference; the operation class and required fields lead, and nothing is repeated from the title. Every clause carries information the agent needs at call time.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers requiredness, the id/name alternative, type-value discovery, and the target endpoint. Only external_id's purpose and any post-write behavior remain unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 67%, and the description usefully resolves the one genuinely ambiguous pair — note_type_id vs note_type_name are alternatives for the same value, with 'General' given as a concrete example and a lookup tool named. It says nothing about external_id, which is the remaining undocumented parameter.

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?

Opens with an explicit verb+resource pair ('add a note to a constituent's record') and marks the operation class with a 'WRITE:' prefix. An agent can distinguish this from lgl_list_constituent_notes and lgl_update_constituent without opening any schema.

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?

Tells the agent what is required (text, original_date) and routes it to the sibling lgl_list_type_values with the exact filter (type=note_types) for discovering valid note types. It does not state when *not* to use it or contrast against update/other creation tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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