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

The description discloses the underlying sync mechanism (Reminders sync) and eventual consistency ('once synced'), which is beyond the minimal annotations. It does not mention potential failure modes or the confirm guard, but the schema covers confirm. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence adds a useful behavioral detail without redundancy. Every word 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?

The description, combined with a 100% covered schema and an output schema, is sufficient for a create operation. It explains the integration path and sync behavior, while the schema covers required parameters and defaults. It doesn't discuss prerequisites like account connection, but that's implied by the M365/To Do context.

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 input schema provides full definitions for all 6 parameters with clear types, formats, and defaults (e.g., 'list' references todo_get_folders, 'priority' explains numeric mapping). The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so it relies on 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 uses a specific verb ('Creates'), names the resource ('task in Microsoft To Do'), and clarifies the integration path ('via Reminders sync'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like todoist_create_task and create_reminder by specifying the exact destination service.

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 provides context about the sync behavior ('Task appears automatically once synced') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_reminder or todoist_create_task. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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