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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it explains that shared-sphere tasks carry extra fields, that locked tasks are read-only and require update_task or add_subtask, and that hidden_from_day tasks should normally be omitted. This is exactly the kind of post-retrieval interpretation an agent cannot get from the annotations or 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?

Front-loaded with the scope, then the usage cue, then the edge-case field semantics. Dense but almost entirely load-bearing; the locked-task sentence drifts slightly into update_task's domain, which is a minor redundancy rather than filler.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so for the tricky cases (shared, locked, ticked, hidden_from_day). It does not describe the general shape of a task object or any ordering behavior, which is a residual gap but not one likely to cause a wrong call.

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% and the format is already documented as YYYY-MM-DD, but the description adds two things the schema cannot express: that omitting date means today, and that the range is capped at 62 days. The unbounded-but-limited relationship between date and to_date is clarified.

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?

The description names a specific resource (tasks) and its scope (one day, up to 62 days, or defaulting to today), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as get_today, get_day_brief, or show_day, so the boundary must be inferred.

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?

"Fits when the user asks what is planned on a day, week or period" gives a clear triggering condition, and the hidden_from_day sentence tells the agent when to surface vs. suppress results. No explicit when-not or named alternative is offered, so it stops short of the top score.

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