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

With annotations already declaring readOnly=false, destructive=false, the description adds genuinely new behavior: notes are searchable and soft-deleted (i.e. recoverable), and it returns the created note. It does not discuss the required link cardinality's effect on failure modes, but the added context is solid.

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 short, front-loaded blocks: what it does, when to use it, and a worked example. No sentence is redundant, and the hard constraint ('MUST link to at least one') appears early where it will be read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the schema fully documents every parameter including the request_id retry semantics. What remains — when to use, the linking constraint, and note lifecycle (searchable, soft-deleted) — is all present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a constraint the schema does not express — that at least one of account_id/contact_id/opportunity_id/touch_id must be supplied — which is exactly the kind of semantic an agent would otherwise miss (the schema only requires 'body').

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 ('Attach a free-form note to any record'), enumerates the record types it can attach to, and states the return value. This distinguishes it clearly from create_record or log_touch, which write structured data rather than free-form context.

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?

'When to use: Free-form context that doesn't fit a structured field' gives an explicit selection criterion, reinforced by a concrete example. It does not name a specific sibling as the alternative for structured data (e.g. update_record), so it stops short of a 5.

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