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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds meaningful behavior on top: it defers the recommendation and creates a task with a seven-day due date. This aligns with the annotations and gives an agent useful operational expectations.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the key timing detail and the user intent. Every part 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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could be slightly stronger by pointing explicitly to skip_recommendation as the alternative when the user does not want to handle the gap later, but this is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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%, with the parameter described as 'Recommendation id from get_house_review.' The description does not add much beyond the schema, but it does reinforce that the ID comes from a House Review context. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Defer a House Review recommendation') and a concrete side effect ('raise a task due in seven days'). It also conveys the intended scope, distinguishing this from sibling tools like skip_recommendation without needing to open the schema.

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 phrase 'for when the user wants to handle the gap later' provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name the alternative, such as skip_recommendation, but the purpose itself makes the primary use case evident.

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