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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is low — yet the description adds a genuinely useful trait: results are shortened previews, not full records. "In a granted project" also implies a permissions precondition. It does not cover pagination behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the preview caveat, then usage intent. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shapes need no explanation, and annotations fully cover the safety profile. The disclosed preview truncation is the key behavioral fact an agent needs. The missing piece is pagination semantics for limit/cursor, which matters for a list tool.

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% across 6 parameters. The description compensates for three of them (status, assignee, last update) mapping to statusId, assigneeId and updatedAfter, and "granted project" hints at projectId. However, limit and cursor pagination parameters are documented nowhere, 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 with scope ("List task previews in a granted project") and names the filterable dimensions, making it clearly distinct from single-item siblings like clean_notes_get_task. It does not explicitly contrast itself with clean_notes_list_notes or clean_notes_list_projects, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

"Use to answer what is open, overdue, or assigned to someone" gives concrete intent that maps to real user questions and selects this tool over get_task. There is no explicit when-not clause or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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