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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' merely restates them. The one piece of genuine added behavior is the default status semantics — omitting status silently excludes done/dropped tasks — which is important and not encoded in the schema.

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 tight sentences with the filter inventory first and the non-obvious default-status caveat second; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the filters and default narrowing well. It omits any mention of the limit parameter's effect (default 20, max 50), which an agent retrieving large sets would benefit from knowing.

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 33%, so the description carries real weight: it explicitly names status, owner_id, due_before/due_after and energy as filters and clarifies the ISO YYYY-MM-DD date format. It does not explain the 'energy' parameter's meaning or the limit/pagination parameter, leaving modest gaps.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List household tasks') and enumerates the available filter dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling find_task, so it is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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 useful default-behavior context ('Without a status, returns active tasks (excludes done/dropped)'), which implicitly tells the agent when the tool returns a narrowed set. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus find_task or any stated exclusion beyond the default filter.

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