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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: delegation is gated by an assignment policy, and linked accounts/conversations must be visible to the caller. It does not describe failure behavior when those constraints are violated, so it stops 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 core action, then scoping, then the datetime constraint. Minimal waste, though the dueAt sentence slightly duplicates the schema's near-identical wording.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so return values and side-effect class are covered. The description supplies the permission/visibility context an agent needs before attempting delegation or linking, leaving only error-handling behavior unaddressed.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a real constraint beyond the schema: ownerId delegation depends on an assignment policy, and relatedType targets must be visible to the caller. The dueAt guidance in the description largely restates the schema's own note, so the lift is modest.

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: create a CRM follow-up task, with scope (for you or another active member), and optional linking to an account or conversation. This distinguishes it reasonably from the generic sibling create_task by naming the CRM entity and the follow-up semantics, though it never explicitly names the sibling it differs from.

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 situational context ('where your assignment policy allows', 'optionally link it to a CRM account or conversation you can see') and one clear precondition about resolving relative dates with the user. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over create_task/update_crm_task, nor what happens when the assignment policy denies delegation.

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