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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context: durable queue ordering and visibility scoping to authorized invocations. However, the visibility sentence is opaque and it says nothing about pagination or result volume, so it adds only moderate value.

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 scope front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is dense but the overall length is appropriate for the tool.

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?

Annotations handle the safety profile and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Still, with 0% schema coverage and an undocumented cursor parameter, the description leaves real gaps an agent must resolve before paging through results.

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 0% for three parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only obliquely references status values ('queued, running and historical') and queue ordering ('durable queue order'), leaving 'limit' unexplained and 'after_queue_seq' cursor semantics unstated.

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 clear verb (list) and resource (Tasks) with explicit scope: queued, running, and historical, in durable queue order. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from, e.g., agent_task_status or agent_task_events, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'As the account owner' hints at an authorization context, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus agent_task_status, agent_task_events, or agent_task_result. The second sentence about 'claimed agents' and 'authorized invocations' does not tell an agent when to call this tool.

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