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

Annotations already supply readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain behavior beyond that: the skip counts toward daily resolution and the cooldown setting is optional rather than a prerequisite. It omits whether the action can be reversed (via unskip_task), which keeps it from 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the semantic consequence and the id source. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety and idempotency, and no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing domain semantics: daily resolution counting and the optional cooldown. An agent can decide and call correctly from this.

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 both parameters and the task id format are already documented. The description adds provenance — "the task id comes from get_today" — which tells the agent where to obtain a valid value, a meaningful lift over the baseline 3, though it adds nothing about reason beyond the schema's own wording.

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: "Mark one task skipped." The parenthetical disambiguates the domain semantics (a skip still counts as resolved for the day; the cooldown is optional and needs no skip), and the second sentence pins the id source to get_today, separating this from complete_task and unskip_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?

Gives clear usage context — apply when the user isn't doing the task and wants it resolved for the day, and clarifies that a cooldown doesn't require a skip. It does not explicitly name siblings like complete_task or unskip_task as alternatives or when-not cases, so it stops short of 5.

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