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

Annotations cover the write/safe profile; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: due time is discarded, no priority field, and how to make a subtask. This is real context beyond annotations, though it does not mention auth or error behavior.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: creation, Google-specific due-date caveat, and subtask routing. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 6-param tool with a partial schema and no output schema, the description covers the key Google Tasks quirks and subtask behavior. It leaves auth/mailbox selection to the schema but is otherwise sufficient to call correctly.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining dueDate time-discarding, the absence of a priority field, and parentTaskId's subtask effect. It does not mention notes or mailbox, but the mailbox schema already points to list_authorized_mailboxes.

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 (add/create) and resource (task to a list), and is distinguishable from siblings like create_outlook_task by naming Google Tasks in the title and due-date semantics. The parentTaskId note clarifies scope beyond a plain add.

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?

Implied usage by mentioning due-date handling and subtasks, but no explicit when-to-use vs create_outlook_task, update_google_task, or list_google_tasks. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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