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

Description discloses important non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: creating persistent state, non-idempotence (two calls create two reminders), no message being sent on due date, and key-based assignment semantics. Annotations already include idempotentHint=false, but the description adds rich context about side effects and ownership.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, non-idempotence, safety against misusing it as an automation, and key/ownership nuance. The most critical usage constraint is front-loaded.

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 side-effect-creating tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: what it does, that it is not idempotent, that it does not send messages, and how application/personal keys affect the created resource. No substantial gap remains.

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 schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds value by explaining assignment consequences of personal vs workspace API keys, which is not fully captured in the schema, and reinforces the optional contactId behavior for standalone reminders.

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?

Description states a specific action on a specific resource: create a follow-up reminder for a person to reach back out to a contact. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like send_message, list_follow_up_tasks, and update_follow_up_task by framing this as a persistent to-do, not an automation.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool vs alternatives: it is a to-do, not an automation, and the agent should use send_message or a broadcast to actually message someone. It also explains the API-key/application scoping behavior, which helps decide when this tool is appropriate.

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