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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well: it states that the operation is idempotent, that reusing a name updates rather than duplicates, that creating costs nothing, and that each delivery attempt consumes a credit. It does not describe response shape or failure modes, but it covers the most decision-relevant behaviors.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, idempotency behavior, and cost implications. The core action and the most important behavioral caveat are front-loaded, with no redundant filler.

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?

The description, combined with a rich 100%-covered input schema, gives an agent enough to decide when to call the tool and how to avoid duplicate task creation. It lacks a statement of return values or error conditions, but no output schema exists and the key operational context—prerequisite, idempotency, and credit cost—is present.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter description coverage, including security-related notes on body versus headers, cron format, and timeout ranges. The tool description itself adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the verified-destination prerequisite and the cost model, so the schema carries the load and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Register a schedule against a destination you have already verified.' It clearly conveys both create and update behavior through the idempotency-on-name rule, which also distinguishes it from a plain create-only tool and from sibling update_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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: after a destination is verified, and when you want a schedule keyed by a unique name. The idempotency statement ('the same name updates the existing task instead of creating a second one') gives practical usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like update_task or run_task_now, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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