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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: matching is fuzzy/partial, and the output is a set of ids rather than a single task. It does not mention that results are capped (schema default limit=5, max 20) or how matches are ranked.

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 compact sentence with an arrow to the return value, front-loading purpose before the workflow hint. No filler, and both fragments earn their place.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, matching behavior, return type, and workflow placement. The only omissions are result-limit/ranking behavior, which are minor for a simple lookup.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, only `query` is documented in the schema; the description reinforces it by saying matches tolerate partial/approximate names, which is meaningful beyond the schema's 'Name or description of the task.' The `limit` parameter is neither described in the schema nor mentioned here, leaving a real gap.

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 ('Look up a household task') and clarifies the matching mode ('by name/description, handles partial/approximate names') plus the return shape ('matching task ids'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_task, so an agent must infer that get_task is the id-based path.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use before transition_status/assign_owner when you lack the id' — a clear when-to-use rule tied to named siblings. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., when an id is already known and get_task would be cheaper).

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