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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/non-idempotent profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: that no notification is sent to anyone (a quiet side effect agents commonly get wrong) and the underlying POST /task endpoint. It stops short of describing error behavior or whether `list` must pre-exist.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, the `due` unit caveat, the notification side effect, and the HTTP endpoint. The operation type is front-loaded and there is no 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?

For a 7-parameter write tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers intent, key field semantics, side effects and transport. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (nonexistent list/user_id, invalid assignment) and whether the created task's id is returned, though the absence of an output schema lowers that burden.

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, but the description adds required-versus-optional framing ('optionally linked to an inquiry and assigned to a user') and emphasizes the ambiguous `due` unit semantics across required fields. It does not clarify how an unknown `list` value is handled, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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 (to-do) in the account') plus the two optional linkage dimensions, so an agent can tell it apart from tokeet_update_task, tokeet_get_task and tokeet_list_tasks. The leading 'WRITE:' marker immediately classifies the operation.

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?

Gives real workflow guidance: it points to tokeet_list_tasks to determine the correct `due` unit before calling, which is a prerequisite step an agent would otherwise miss. It does not, however, state when to use this versus tokeet_update_task or what to do if the task already exists, so no exclusions are defined.

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