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

Annotations already declare write, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to re-establish safety. It adds value by stating 'Creates a new task each call' (reinforcing non-idempotency in plain terms) and the supporter/donation linkage rule, which the annotations do not capture. It never says what to expect on a missing linkage (error?) or what comes back.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with 'WRITE', then the linkage constraint, then the length limit and endpoint. Nearly every sentence carries information; only the title-length repeat is redundant.

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 8-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description is thin on the return side: an agent creating a task will likely need the new task id, and nothing indicates whether one is returned or whether an error results from missing linkage. The linkage rule and mutation semantics are covered, but the post-call picture isn't.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by disclosing a cross-parameter constraint no single field description can express (at least one of supporter_id or transaction_id). The title 40-character note merely repeats the schema's maxLength, which is wasted but harmless.

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 ('create a task in Funraise') plus a non-obvious scoping rule: it must be linked to a supporter or a donation. This clearly separates it from funraise_get_task and funraise_complete_task without the agent needing to open 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?

'give at least one' of supporter_id or transaction_id is an explicit precondition for calling. It doesn't name the alternative siblings (e.g. create a task vs. log an interaction), so routing guidance is partial, but the critical gating rule is stated.

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