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

The annotations already declare this as a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: ordering of results, the follow_up_blocked flag, and the required manage_tasks or read_crm permission.

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 compact sentences with no wasted language. The most important ordering rule is front-loaded, followed by the blocked-contact warning and permission requirement.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the key behavioral context: ordering, blocked follow-up semantics, and permissions. It does not describe pagination or return shape, but no output schema exists to clarify those details.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for missing schema parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource and temporal scope: overdue and due-today tasks first, then the next 7 days. It is distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like create_task, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with other list tools.

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 gives clear usage context and an exclusion: tasks on contacts who replied, unsubscribed, or bounced are flagged follow_up_blocked and should not be chased. It also states prerequisite permissions, but it does not name alternative tools for adjacent task-listing needs.

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