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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add a new note' implies a mutation operation but fails to specify permissions needed, whether the note is persistent, if there are rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness for a tool with parameters and no annotations.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling context, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters are used, or behavioral aspects, failing to provide adequate context for effective 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?

The description mentions no parameters, while the input schema has 2 required parameters (name, content) with 0% schema description coverage. This creates a complete gap in understanding what 'name' and 'content' represent, their formats, or constraints, making parameter usage ambiguous.

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 'Add a new note' restates the tool name 'add-note' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'add' and resource 'note' but lacks any distinguishing details about scope, format, or context that would clarify what kind of note is being added or where it's stored.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool, such as prerequisites, alternatives, or specific scenarios. With no sibling tools mentioned, it doesn't differentiate from other note-related operations, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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