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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds real value by disclosing the implicit open-status default and the shape of the return (due time plus owning deal), but says nothing about result caps, pagination, or ordering, which matters for a list tool with no output schema.

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?

One compact sentence plus a semicolon clause, front-loading the resource and its default scope before the parameter hint. Every element earns its place: the parenthetical enumerates task kinds and the trailing clause documents the status toggle.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (task type, due time, owning deal) and how to change scope. The remaining gap is volume behavior — no mention of limits, ordering, or pagination — which an agent would want before calling on a busy workspace.

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 50%: workspace_id is documented in-schema, while the status enum ('open'|'done') carries no description or default. The description compensates by conveying that results default to open tasks and that status=done retrieves finished ones, adding semantics the schema does not provide. It does not add anything on workspace_id, but that is already adequately specified.

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 (list) and resource (CRM tasks), and further narrows scope with the task taxonomy (calls, messages, meetings, to-dos) and the default 'open' filter. This is unambiguous about what comes back, but it never names which sibling to use instead (e.g., dosai_get_crm_today for a cross-pipeline view, or dosai_list_followups).

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 clause 'status=done for finished ones' implies the default is open and tells you how to switch, which is useful invocation guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no guidance on choosing this over adjacent tools like dosai_get_crm_today or dosai_list_deals for related task/deal data.

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