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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: tasks are human to-dos and are auto-created by TASK steps in a campaign flow, and 'completing a task sends nothing' clarifies that these are not outbound actions. It doesn't discuss listing order or pagination behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition, followed by disambiguation and a behavioral note. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no 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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, this covers what the data is, where it comes from, how to scope it, and when to use a different tool instead. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 page, leadId, emailAccountId, and linkedAccountId are already documented. The description only reinforces the leadId filter via 'or for one lead' and says nothing about the mailbox or LinkedIn account filters, so it adds marginal value over the 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 defines the resource precisely as 'manual to-dos for your team' and states the scope (whole account or one lead). It explicitly distinguishes itself from three siblings that might otherwise be confused with tasks, so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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 explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'a pending campaign action is activity_list or lead_flow_state, and a dated nudge is reminder_list.' This names the alternatives and the condition that routes to each, leaving nothing to inference.

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