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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false; the description gives those hints concrete meaning by explaining that notes are appended and nothing is overwritten, which is exactly the operational consequence an agent needs. It omits auth/permission requirements, rate limits, and the shape of the response, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker, and every clause carries distinct information: action, visibility/append semantics, and the underlying 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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and clear annotations, this covers everything needed to invoke it safely. The one real gap is what the call returns — there is no output schema, and the description never says whether the created note or just a status is returned.

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% and both parameters (order_id, text) are already documented in the schema, including the 5000-character cap. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("WRITE: add a new note to an order"), and the sibling list contains sellasist_list_order_notes, so an agent can immediately separate the write path from the read path without consulting the 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?

It establishes the operational context for calling it: the note is staff-visible and each call appends rather than replaces, so callers understand the effect of invoking it repeatedly. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative (list_order_notes) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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