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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is redundant. What does add value is disclosing the response composition (current tasks, standard-task catalog, and remaining custom-task budget) in the absence of an output schema, hinting at a per-receptionist quota constraint.

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 short sentences with zero waste: what it returns first, then the exclusion, then the safety profile. Front-loaded and scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers the shape of the result. Minor gaps remain, such as whether the standard-task catalog is filtered by business type or how the budget is expressed numerically, but 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?

Only one parameter (agentId) exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that the ID comes from listAgents. The description adds nothing about the identifier or its format, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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 (List) and resource (a receptionist's call tasks), then enumerates the three things returned: assigned tasks, the catalog of standard enableable tasks, and the remaining custom-task budget. The parenthetical '(what it collects or accomplishes on every call)' makes the resource concrete, and 'Read-only' separates it from the mutation siblings agent_tasks_add and agent_tasks_delete.

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?

Provides one explicit exclusion ('Not for notification settings'), which steers the agent away from notification_settings_get, but gives no positive trigger condition or comparison against agent_tasks_add/agent_tasks_delete. Usage is only implied by the enumeration of returned content.

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