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

Annotations only indicate that the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not open-world, leaving the description to carry behavioral meaning. The description adds a meaningful behavioral nuance: recurring tasks should be consolidated into one recurring item via repeatRule rather than created as many one-time tasks. It does not describe return values or side effects, but the presence of an output schema and non-destructive annotations mitigate that gap.

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?

The description is three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary use case, immediately gives usage guidance, and then states exclusions with sibling alternatives. 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 tool's 13 parameters, the description sufficiently covers intent mapping, recurring-task behavior, and sibling differentiation. Combined with a fully documented schema and output schema, an agent can correctly select and invoke the tool. Minor details like todoList attachment or owner/assignee handling are left to the schema, but they are fully described there, so no critical gap exists.

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 does mention the repeatRule parameter and its purpose, but the schema's own repeatRule description already explains the same recurring-schedule guidance, so the main description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 tool creates a responsibility-style Familia task, agreement, reminder, or chore, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from familia_create_plan (calendar events) and familia_create_list_task (lists), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without inspecting other schemas.

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?

It provides an explicit when-to-use trigger ('when the user asks to create a responsibility-style Familia task...'), explicit exclusions ('Do not use for calendar-style events... use familia_create_plan instead'), and a clear routing rule for lists ('use familia_create_list_task'). It also gives a concrete rule for recurring tasks: provide repeatRule and create one recurring task rather than multiple.

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