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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuine value with the 'Requires the manage_tasks scope' auth prerequisite, but it does not say what happens when neither contact_id nor deal_id is supplied, whether both may be supplied, or what a successful call returns.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource, then the optional due date, target scope, and auth requirement. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, target, and permission requirement but is silent on the return value (e.g., a task id) and on the contact_id/deal_id exclusivity rule. Adequate to trigger a correct call, but with notable remaining gaps.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by establishing that the task belongs to 'a contact or a deal' — a constraint the schema itself does not enforce, since only title is required. It also flags the due date as optional.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a follow-up task or reminder') plus its attachment scope ('on a contact or a deal'), which clearly separates it from siblings like add_note or list_due_tasks. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly as the alternative, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 when to use it (when a follow-up or reminder is needed on a contact or deal) and states the required manage_tasks scope. However, it never excludes alternatives such as add_note for plain notes or list_due_tasks for reading them, leaving selection between siblings to inference.

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