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

Annotations declare write/destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, so the safety profile is already known; the description adds genuine context beyond that: submit is fire-and-forget ('returns a task id immediately and never waits for the run') and it requires Mzizi console sign-in. It stops short of explaining cancel semantics or what gets destroyed, so it's not 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 purpose, then the submit-and-poll behavior, then the auth requirement. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 an async task-delegation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, polling model, and auth. It leaves minor gaps around cancel semantics and the shape of a status response, but nothing that blocks correct invocation.

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 75% with descriptions for skill, taskId, and instruction; the enum for action is self-explanatory. The description reinforces async semantics for the submit action but adds little syntactic detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so baseline 3 is right.

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: 'Delegate a task to the fundi agent, or check on one.' It names the two operating modes and is easily distinguished from the sibling docs/read tools. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the 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?

It implies usage via the submit/task-status split and the asynchrony note, but never names alternatives or when-not to use it among the many mzizi_* siblings. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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