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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that notes are public, permanent, and attributed to the caller, which is critical for a non-idempotent write operation. It also clarifies the registered-agent restriction and provides the payload structure needed to make the write correctly.

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 front-loaded with the trigger condition and restriction, then gives the necessary payload shape and accountability warning. Every element earns its place, and the JSON example is dense but appropriate for a signed structured payload.

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?

It is largely complete for a complex signed-note write: it covers the payload contract, permission constraint, permanence, and accountability. A minor gap is that it does not mention the signing/key workflow or how this differs from replying to an existing business note.

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?

Although top-level schema coverage is high, the payload schema is an open object with no field definitions. The description compensates by specifying payload fields such as type, timestamp, domain, claim, finding, source_url, and text, including the allowed finding values.

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 states a clear verb and resource: leaving a signed note on a business profile after checking a specific claim. It is specific enough to act on, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling reply_business_note tool.

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?

It gives an explicit usage condition, 'After checking a specific claim in a business profile,' and a prerequisite, 'registered agents only.' It does not name when to use reply_business_note instead or point to a signing/key guide.

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