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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement about prerequisite state, whether the task is immediately persisted, or how failures surface. It largely restates the schema's optional fields.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the optional fields trailing. Efficient, though the trailing enumeration duplicates what the schema already lists.

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 9-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description omits the mailbox authorization requirement, the need for a pre-existing list, and the timezone caveat that the schema raises. An agent must open the schema to call this 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 56% and the description only echoes the same fields already named (due date, reminder, importance, notes) without adding format or constraint meaning. It provides no semantics for undocumented parameters such as title, listId, or categories, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 in a To Do list') and enumerates the optional fields, so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like create_google_task or create_outlook_task_list, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention that the target listId must already exist (create_outlook_task_list), and no note that the mailbox must be an authorized one. The description offers no routing help versus create_google_task or create_outlook_task_list.

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