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

Annotations are limited to idempotentHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful, non-obvious rule: resolve relative date expressions to concrete ISO dates based on the current date. While it doesn't discuss side effects like duplicate creation, the idempotentHint already signals non-idempotency, and the description's calculation rule goes beyond any annotation.

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?

Two efficient sentences: the primary action is front-loaded, and the important due-date calculation instruction follows immediately. There is no filler, redundancy, or vague phrasing.

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 6-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral nuance: converting relative dates to ISO due_date. It relies on the schema for parameter details, which is appropriate given 100% schema coverage. A minor gap is the absence of any mention of response format or error conditions, but these are not critical for a simple create operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining how to populate due_date when the user provides a relative date, which the schema's pattern-only description does not convey. Other parameters are sufficiently documented by their schema descriptions.

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 verb and resource: it creates a new task ('Maakt een nieuwe taak aan'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like complete_task, update_task, and create_note by its create action and resource type. The added instruction about calculating due_date for relative dates further clarifies the tool's exact role.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should use this when a new task must be created rather than updated or completed. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no sibling tool is named. The relative-date instruction adds context, but the tool could be more explicit about routing.

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