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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: the task is queued, its deadline is respected, and downstream handling differs between external agents (claim_task) and integrated tasks (runId). It still omits failure behavior, idempotency, permissions, and what happens if the deadline is missed.

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?

The description is three short sentences and front-loads the main action. 'Respecte son échéance' is somewhat cryptic and could be clearer, but there is little wasted 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?

For a simple one-parameter async tool, the description gives useful queueing and downstream-agent context. However, it leaves gaps around the meaning of id, expected return values, and deadline-miss behavior, which matter because there is no output schema.

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?

There is one required parameter, id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what id refers to or its expected format. The phrase 'une tâche attribuée' hints that it identifies a task, but this does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Mettre une tâche attribuée à un workflow/agent en file' clearly means enqueueing a task. It also distinguishes external-agent handling (claim_task) from integrated-task handling (runId), though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like save_task or set_task_state.

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 implied by the queueing action and the note that an external agent waits for claim_task while an integrated task exposes runId. However, it never states when to choose run_task over alternatives such as save_task, set_task_state, or run_flow.

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