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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is an append (non-destructive), requires a verified customer, and is internal. However, it lacks details on permissions, failure modes, or response behavior, which are important for a mutation tool with no 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and context. Every word contributes value, with no unnecessary filler.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It omits meanings for session_token and note, potential errors, and any post-condition, leaving the agent with insufficient information for correct use.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. The names 'note' and 'session_token' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type constraints. This is a significant gap for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 clearly states the action ('append an internal CRM note'), the resource ('CRM note'), and the context ('for the verified customer during or after booking'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tag_contact, which likely adds tags, and update_* tools that might overwrite.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'during or after booking' and 'for the verified customer.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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