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

Annotations (all false) provide no behavioral info, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a log entry (write operation), requires ownership of deal_id/lead_id, and tasks become visible in 'list_sales_tasks'. It does not describe error handling or side effects beyond that, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, detailing required inputs and defaults, and providing task-specific instructions with a sibling reference. No redundant or extraneous 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (covering return values) and sufficient annotations, the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, how to use parameters, ownership constraints, and the relationship to 'list_sales_tasks'. It is complete for an activity logging tool.

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 71% (5 of 7 params described). The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying ownership constraints for deal_id/lead_id, the default value for type, and the format requirement for due_date. It does not clarify body or subject parameters, but the schema's lack of description for these is partially offset by the overall clarity.

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 verb 'Log an activity on a deal (or lead)' and specifies the resource (deal/lead) and types of activities (note/call/meeting/email/task). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'complete_sales_task' by mentioning tasks appear in 'list_sales_tasks', implying this tool logs new activities rather than completing or listing them.

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 explains when to use: to log an activity on a deal/lead. It provides guidance on IDs (must be owned by caller) and defaults ('type' defaults to 'note'). For tasks, it instructs to set type='task' and provide due_date. It does not explicitly state when not to use or point to alternatives like 'complete_sales_task', but the context is clear enough.

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