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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds genuinely useful behavior: the returned due value is a UTC instant with a company timezone, and both unseen and missing IDs resolve to "not found" rather than a permission error. That error-semantics disclosure is valuable and not derivable from the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed immediately by the behavioral caveats. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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, so return structure need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still covers visibility scoping and not-found behavior, leaving only the sibling-disambiguation (get_task vs. list_crm_tasks) unstated.

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 single taskId parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so this is the baseline 3 case. The description adds nothing about the ID's origin or format beyond what the schema already says ("CRM task ID", 1-100 chars).

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 ("Get one CRM follow-up task"), scoping it to a single CRM task rather than the list sibling list_crm_tasks or the generic get_task. The added visibility qualifier ("you may see") tells an agent the result is permission-scoped, which no sibling name conveys.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the fetch-one-by-ID counterpart to list_crm_tasks, but the description never names an alternative or states a precondition. No when-not guidance is given, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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