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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral substance: exactly which cards are included (assigned and open, or dated and unassigned on owned boards) and the fixed ordering of result groups. It does not mention any default cap or pagination behavior, which is the one remaining gap.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope before the inclusion rules and group ordering. Every clause earns its place, though the single-sentence form packs a lot of nested criteria that could be marginally easier to scan if split.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by describing the return shape — the five ordered buckets (overdue, today, next 7 days, later, no date). With annotations covering the read-only safety profile and the limit param documented in the schema, an agent has what it needs; only pagination/truncation behavior is unaddressed.

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 'limit' parameter documents its default (100) and max (500). The description adds nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the full burden.

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?

Specific verb ('Lists') plus resource ('the user's tasks across every board') with an explicit analog ('like the app's My tasks page'). The inclusion rules (open cards assigned to the user, plus dated unassigned cards on the user's own boards) and the grouping buckets make it unmistakable versus siblings like search_tasks or get_task.

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?

Usage is strongly implied — this is the 'my tasks' view — but the description never states when to prefer it over search_tasks or list_boards, nor any exclusions. An agent can infer the context but gets no explicit routing guidance.

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