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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the note is visible to 'everyone working the job' and should preserve the user's own words. That audience/visibility disclosure is the kind of behavioral detail an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the content-quality instruction second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter, non-destructive write with no output schema, the description covers purpose, audience, and content expectations. It omits any mention of failure modes (e.g. the brand mismatch refusal documented in the schema), but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 remaining coverage is largely in the schema itself (brand documents optionality and refusal behavior; content documents maxLength). The description's 'write what the user actually said' is content guidance but adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Record a note against a job') so the agent knows exactly what happens. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like add_project_crew or create_job, but the note-vs-job distinction is unambiguous.

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 description implies usage by telling the agent what to write ('what the user actually said rather than your summary'), but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool routing. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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