deal_card_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds important behavioral context: despite the 'write-back' framing, it clarifies that only text is built and nothing is sent. It also describes the exact note contents, helping the agent understand the output beyond the safety profile.

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 compact and front-loads the note's contents, with a short second sentence clarifying the no-send behavior. The first sentence is slightly indirect ('The note the CRM write-back would put'), but overall there is no wasted text.

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 rich annotations and the existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is generated, what it contains, and that no side effect occurs. The only notable gap is the absence of any parameter explanation for call_id, though the parameter name makes the intent obvious.

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 schema has one required parameter (call_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention call_id or explain its meaning. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific action ('Builds the text only') and resource (the deal card note), and enumerates the note contents (verdict, flags, every score with quote, deal-field payload). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the actual CRM write-back by clarifying that nothing is sent.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as submit_scores or score_call. It only implies preview usage through 'Builds the text only; nothing is sent,' but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives.

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