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

Beyond the annotations, it reveals meaningful behavior: the responsible party is the deal key owner, and tasks without a due date will not appear in 'Сегодня' and will be forgotten. This is useful, non-obvious context that helps the agent predict consequences. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 description is three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and provides the most important constraint (deadline required) with a concrete reason, making every sentence earn its place.

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 simple tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core inputs and an important behavioral consequence. The only minor gaps are the lack of a stated return value and the somewhat niche internal term 'хозяин ключа', which may need domain knowledge to resolve.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'по сделке' maps to deal_id, the examples map to text, and 'со сроком' maps to due_at. However, it does not explain the date-time format expected for due_at or give precise semantics for each parameter by name.

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?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Поставить задачу по сделке со сроком' — to create a task on a deal. It is not a tautology and clearly conveys the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling add_deal_note, relying on the task/note distinction in the names.

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 description gives concrete use examples ('позвонить, отправить договор') and emphasizes a hard precondition (deadline is required). It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like add_deal_note, or mention any exclusions.

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