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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds genuinely useful context by disclosing bounded pagination, an exact total, and returned fields (status, version, links). The final "Read-only" sentence is redundant with the annotations but harmless.

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?

Two lean sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before the return details. The only waste is the trailing "Read-only," which restates an annotation.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and pagination behavior that would otherwise be missing. Only the lack of guidance about related tools (get_operator_task, control_operator_task) leaves a small gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, with limit and offset fully documented in the schema (defaults, max 50, offset cap). The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("List durable Operator tasks") and scopes it to "the selected product," which distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_operator_task and from control_operator_task. It is clear but does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces.

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?

Usage is only implied: "List" plus the product scope signals a bulk read versus get_operator_task's single fetch, but no when-to-use condition, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated. An agent can infer intent but gets no routing help.

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