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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful operational fact, the fixed $0.05 per-call price, which the agent cannot get from structured fields. It says nothing about output shape, chunk/size limits on notes, or failure behavior on unusable input.

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 core sentence is well front-loaded and the pricing note earns its place. The trailing "Getting from messy notes to a checklist." restates the first sentence in vaguer words and is pure padding.

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 is the only place an agent can learn what comes back, and it never says (list of task objects? owners as strings or inferred names?). Combined with 0% parameter coverage and an ambiguous optional parameter, the definition leaves the agent guessing on both sides of the 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 description coverage is 0% across two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains what "notes" should contain (raw transcript? bullet list? length limits?) or what "context" is for (audience, project, date reference) despite "context" being an ambiguous, easily misused field.

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?

"Turn notes into a task list with owners and due dates" names a specific input (notes), a specific artifact (task list), and its fields (owners, due dates). That is enough to separate it from analysis tools like fikra_analyse_logs, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the very similar fikra_extract_meeting_actions or fikra_organise_notes.

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?

No indication of when to reach for this instead of fikra_extract_meeting_actions (also an extraction-from-text tool) or fikra_organise_notes. No preconditions, no exclusions, no alternative routing.

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