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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'does NOT create them' and describes the return shape and the conditional member-matching behavior when projectId is supplied. It stops short of stating limits (text length caps, failure modes for unmatched assignee names), which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then output shape, then the critical non-mutating guarantee and the hand-off guidance. The 'Feature: aiCore (every plan)' clause is enterprise metadata that costs a sentence without helping the agent select or invoke the tool, a minor deduction.

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 compensates by describing the returned array element shape, the non-mutating contract, and the conditional resolution behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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% for the two parameters, so the schema already documents text and projectId. The description restates the projectId member-resolution behavior rather than adding new syntax, format, or constraint detail; the extracted field shape it lists is return-value information, not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 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 and resource ('Parse a free-text or pasted schedule into a structured task list') and immediately disambiguates it from the write-side siblings by declaring it does NOT create tasks. An agent can tell it apart from create_task, bulk_create_tasks, and instantiate_plan 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 an explicit trigger scenario ('when the user pastes a schedule from email, a spreadsheet, or a document and asks "turn this into tasks"') and names the downstream alternatives ('Pass the result to instantiate_plan or create_task to materialise'), which is exactly the routing decision an agent needs.

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