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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the run executes under the agent's permissions, may message people, consumes agent credits, and blocks up to 15 seconds. It also explains the dual return shape (finished task vs running=true), which is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs for a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world call.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then side effects, then timeout/return behavior and the follow-up tool. No filler.

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 destructive trigger with no output schema, the description covers side effects, permissions, cost, timeout semantics, and the return contract, plus a pointer to get_agent_task for polling. An agent can call this correctly without further inference.

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 100% and both parameters document their source lookups (list_agent_tasks, list_agents). The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Start one run of a scheduled task') plus the crucial scope qualifier 'now, outside its schedule', which immediately separates it from schedule_agent_task and stop_agent_task.

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?

Clearly frames when to use it — an immediate out-of-schedule execution — and gives explicit follow-up guidance ('Follow it with get_agent_task'). It doesn't state when not to use it or contrast with the scheduling siblings by name, so not a full 5.

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