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

The annotations already mark this as a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive tool. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: completing does not message the contact, and snoozing also moves the due time so the task reappears afterward. It does not describe reopen/reschedule side effects, which keeps it from a 5.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The action list is front-loaded, and the second and third sentences each add a distinct behavioral clarification that earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description plus schema is sufficient for correct invocation. The main missing piece is the lack of any mention of return values or response shape, especially since there is no output schema.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds a small amount of related context about snoozing affecting due time, but it does not meaningfully expand on individual parameter semantics.

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 names the exact resource ('one follow-up task') and all supported actions: close, reopen, snooze, or reschedule. It also clarifies what completing means ('records that a person handled the reminder'), which distinguishes it from messaging tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool and explicitly notes that it does not message the contact, preventing use as a send_message alternative. It does not name sibling tools like create_follow_up_task or list_follow_up_tasks explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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