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

With destructructiveHint present in annotations, the description adds the meaningful scope exclusion (no noteTargets linkage) and the REST mapping, both of which are behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not reveal auth requirements, side effects, or the response shape, but those gaps are minor for a create operation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the key fields, then scope and endpoint. Every clause earns its place; the parenthetical aside is the only slightly awkward element.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be explained. For a 3-parameter create tool with full schema coverage it covers the essentials and adds a useful scope note, though it omits any auth or side-effect context.

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 the schema already documents title, body, and extra. The description merely restates that title is required and body holds content, adding no syntax, format, or constraint detail the schema lacks — the baseline 3.

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+resource ('Create a note'), which inherently distinguishes it from the create_company/person/task siblings. It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly call out its difference from any named sibling tool the way the highest-scoring examples do.

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 parenthetical '(Attaching to records via noteTargets is out of scope.)' gives a clear when-not constraint, useful because an agent might otherwise expect to link a note to a record on creation. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or describing the full context in which note creation is preferred.

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