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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: default filtering to open tasks, counting of done/dropped tasks instead of listing them, and the claimable-first/newest-first ordering. It does not discuss access requirements, but for a read-only list tool that is a modest gap.

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 sentences, no filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (what is listed, row shape, ordering, default filter) are front-loaded.

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 six-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (one short row plus counters), ordering rules and default scoping, while the schema covers pagination and detail flags. It is close to complete; only a brief note on paging or detail expansion would close the remaining 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 coverage is 100%, so limit, cursor, status, task_id and include_details are already documented. The description reinforces the default status behavior and the row shape, but says nothing about limit, cursor, task_id or include_details, so it adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource ("Lists a project's tasks") and immediately specifies what each row contains (status, holder, lease state, detail line) plus ordering (claimable first, newest first). This is far more than a restatement of the name and makes it easily distinguishable from create_task, get_project and list_projects.

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?

It clearly states the default scope — only open tasks, with done/dropped ones merely counted — which tells the agent what it gets without extra parameters. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicitly saying when to reach for a sibling, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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