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

The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the $0.01 per-call cost and that failures are not billed. That is real behavioral information an agent can't get from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone, though linkage requirements between email and contact_id remain undisclosed.

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 short sentence with no padding, but it is a noun phrase rather than a front-loaded statement of what the call does. It is concise at the cost of being under-specified.

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 mutation with 17% schema coverage and no output schema, the description omits how a task is attached to a record (email vs contact_id), whether title-only calls are valid, and what is returned. Only the billing and priority/due_at notes are covered.

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 only 17% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It restates due_at/priority (already in schema, including the enum) but says nothing about the crucial email vs contact_id choice or what details is for.

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 resource ('a follow-up on a contact') and two of its fields, so an agent can infer this creates a task, but it never states the action verb — the verb only appears in the title. It also doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like tasks_create or crm_add_note.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus tasks_create, crm_complete_task, or crm_add_note, nor any prerequisite or exclusion stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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