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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds genuinely new behavioral facts: 'not metered' (cost profile) and 'Rows are bounded summaries' (return fidelity), which tells the agent not to expect the full receipt. It does not cover cursor expiry or result-volume behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four compact sentences, each doing distinct work: identity, recovery use case, parameters, and result-fidelity plus sibling routing. Nothing is repeated from the title and no sentence could be dropped without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still warns that rows are summaries rather than receipts. With the recovery scenario, sibling routing, paging, and metering all covered for a 4-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 only 25% (only workspace_tag is documented), so the description has to carry weight, and it does: it names status as a filter and limit/cursor as the paging pair, and front-loads the newest-first ordering that governs cursor semantics. It stops short of explaining what each status value means or how long a cursor stays valid.

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 ('Lists this principal's durable submission Tasks'), plus scope ('in one workspace') and ordering ('newest first'). It also differentiates from the two nearest siblings, tasks_get (full receipt) and list_transfer_sessions (statement-creation Tasks), so an agent can pick correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering situation: 'the recovery path for a lost taskId after disconnect, timeout, or restart'. It also routes the exception case away to list_transfer_sessions and points to tasks_get for full detail, covering when-to-use, when-not, and alternatives.

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