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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), so the description only needs to add context — and it does: the completed_at null-means-open convention and the 'earliest due first' ordering are real behavioral details an agent would otherwise have to discover. Auth requirements and any rate limits remain undisclosed.

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 tight sentences: scope and return fields first, then filtering and ordering, with the HTTP path trailing. No filler and nothing buried.

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 naming the returned fields (label, due_at, completed_at, schedule, calendar_event_id) and the sort order. Pagination is left to the schema's next_offset note, which is adequate; only auth/permission context is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented with format and bounds. The description only restates the filtering intent ('open tasks or a due-date window') and adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema — 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 — 'List housekeeping/operations tasks attached to calendar events' — and enumerates the fields returned, so the scope is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearest sibling, bookingmood_list_calendar_events, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Filter to open tasks or a due-date window' implies the two useful calling patterns (completed flag, due_from/due_to range), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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