Api task templates yearly review retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the folder-grouping behavior, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result shape, permissions, or pagination.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded before the purposes clause. Slightly terse, but nothing wasted.

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 zero-parameter read with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description conveys what comes back (templates grouped by folder) and why to call it. Only the return structure remains implicit.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing the schema could fail to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is unfiltered (all templates, grouped by folder).

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?

Specific verb ('Get') and clearly identified resource ('recurrent task templates grouped by folder'), plus the scoping angle 'yearly review'. It is distinguishable from siblings like task_templates_list or calendar_retrieve, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'for yearly review' implies the review-workflow context in which to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to the plain list or calendar siblings.

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