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

Annotations indicate a modification operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: reminders appear in the dashboard and can trigger notifications. This goes beyond the annotations, though it omits specifics like idempotency or rate limits.

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 with no waste. The first sentence states the action and resource, the second adds context. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Given the 6 parameters are fully described in the schema and there is an output schema (implied), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavior. It does not discuss errors or permissions, but for a create tool this is acceptable.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by mentioning that reminders can be linked to a lead or job, which aligns with leadId and jobId parameters, but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema's own 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 clearly states the verb 'Schedule' and the resource 'reminder', and distinguishes it by noting it can be linked to a lead or job. It avoids tautology and provides enough specificity to differentiate from sibling tools like reminders.list.

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 implies usage for scheduling follow-up reminders and mentions optional linking to leads/jobs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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