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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds context that the note is visible to managers in the deal card, which is useful. It doesn't mention any side effects beyond visibility, but for a simple note-adding tool this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose, followed by a note about visibility. It's concise and every sentence adds value.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and visibility. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it vs add_deal_task, and doesn't describe the return value or error conditions, but these are minor for a note-adding tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of the text (call outcome, agreement, objection) but doesn't add detail about deal_id beyond what the schema shows. The description gives some semantic context for the text parameter but not for deal_id.

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 ('Добавить заметку в ленту сделки') and the resource (deal feed/note), and gives examples of content (call outcome, agreement, objection). It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_deal_task by focusing on notes rather than tasks, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 when to use it: when you need to add a note to a deal, and mentions that managers will see it in the deal card. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like add_deal_task.

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