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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the "WRITE" marker, the confidentiality property that the note is never visible or sent to the guest, and the concrete endpoint POST /guest/{guest_pkey}/note.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus the endpoint path, with no filler. The behaviorally important constraint (not visible to the guest) appears immediately after the core verb+resource.

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 write tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, write semantics, and confidentiality. It does not state auth/permission requirements, idempotency behavior, or what the call returns (there is no output schema), which are minor gaps for this tool class.

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 both parameters (guest_id, note) are already documented, including the note's 1-4000 length bounds. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for the parameters themselves except reinforcing that guest_id maps to the pkey in the URL path, 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 names a specific verb and resource ("add an internal note to a guest record") and clarifies the note is internal, which separates it from guest-facing siblings like tokeet_record_guest_interaction. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest siblings (update_guest, record_guest_interaction), so it stops short of a 5.

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: you add a note when you have internal commentary about a guest, and the note is not sent to the guest. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative, so the agent must infer routing from the purpose statement alone.

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