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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so restating non-idempotency is partly redundant — but the description adds the concrete consequence ("calling it twice adds two notes") plus a genuinely new trait: the note becomes staff-visible, which matters for what an agent chooses to write. No mention of permissions or the returned payload.

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; the WRITE marker and the resource are front-loaded, and each sentence carries distinct information (what, who sees it, repeat-call behaviour). Nothing is padded or repeated for its own sake.

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 5-parameter write tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the remaining gap is the response: there is no output schema and the description doesn't say whether a note id or the created note is returned. Otherwise an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 every parameter, including the author_id default and the target_type enum, is already documented in structured data. The description's parenthetical list of record kinds adds only marginal reinforcement, so 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?

Starts with an explicit verb and resource ("WRITE: add a note to one Street record") and enumerates the record kinds covered, which lets an agent separate it from neighbouring creators such as street_create_task, street_create_follow_up and street_create_enquiry 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?

The note's visibility ("visible to the agency's staff") gives useful context for choosing free-text notes over structured records, but the description never states when to prefer this over the sibling creators or what precondition (a valid target_type/target_id pair) is needed. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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