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

Annotations declare the write, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world profile, so safety is largely covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: the team is notified in the cabinet (a visible side effect) and the editor-role requirement (an auth gate). It omits that repeats create additional reminders, which its non-idempotent hint makes relevant.

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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded and non-redundant: what it does, an example, the notification side effect, and the permission requirement. Nothing to trim.

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 4-param write tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing auth and side-effect context. Minor gaps remain (whether note is required in practice, and how reminders are later retrieved via dosai_list_lead_reminders) but nothing blocking for correct invocation.

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 75%: due_at carries a detailed ISO-8601/UTC-offset description and both UUIDs document their source tools, but note is undocumented. The description's example phrasing loosely indicates what goes in the reminder but adds no format, length, or optional-vs-required detail beyond the schema, so the 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+resource ("Set a reminder on a lead") with a concrete example of the reminder content, so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as dosai_add_lead_notification or dosai_schedule_message, though "The team is notified in the cabinet" hints at the side-effect difference.

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?

The example "call back tomorrow at 10" implies intended usage and "Requires editor role" gives a prerequisite, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance and no statement of what happens when the reminder fires, so usage is only inferred.

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