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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: an account-level quota on custom tasks, a one-task-per-request rule, and a required user-approval gate before invocation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two mode branches, then the constraints, then the approval gate. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only four flat, fully documented parameters, the description supplies everything an agent needs: both modes, quotas, per-request scope, and the approval prerequisite.

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% and the schema's own title description already spells out the standard-vs-custom conditional and the dependency on description/completionCriteria. The description restates that mapping rather than adding new meaning (e.g., format, length, or what happens if a custom title collides with a standard one).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Enable one call task on a receptionist') and immediately disambiguates the two modes: standard task from agent_tasks_list versus custom task. An agent can distinguish this from agent_tasks_list and agent_tasks_delete without opening any 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?

Gives explicit branching instructions: pass only title for a standard task, pass title+description+completionCriteria for a custom task. It also states hard constraints (max 3 custom tasks per account, one task per user request) and a procedural precondition ('Get explicit approval before calling').

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