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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: results are limited to data visible to the linked Market Brew account. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite offset/pageSize filters existing.

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 short sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded and zero padding. It is slightly redundant with the title but wastes no space.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could reasonably be expected to say more about return shape, ordering, or pagination defaults. Combined with the absence of sibling differentiation among the several list_task* tools, the definition is adequate but leaves gaps an agent could trip on.

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%: the single query parameter documents all supported filters (websiteId, dates, sortBy, offset, pageSize, etc.), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no filter syntax, defaults, or semantics beyond that, making 3 the baseline.

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 verb and resource (list tasks) and scopes it to 'current Ranking Sensor tasks', which is clearer than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like list_top_tasks, list_task_children, or list_task_history, so the agent must still infer which list variant applies.

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 gives one trigger condition ('when the user asks to list current Ranking Sensor tasks'), which is implied usage rather than real guidance. There is no when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling list tools that would be alternatives for historical or child tasks.

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