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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the hard cap of 50 results and ordering by last updated. It does not say what happens when the result set exceeds 50, which is the one remaining behavioral 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then return behavior — no filler. The opening enumeration is slightly long but each clause maps to a real filter dimension.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers return shape (count cap, ordering), and all six optional parameters are documented in the schema. The missing pieces are pagination/truncation behavior and its relationship to sibling listing tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, so every parameter (including enum-free priority/attention values) is already documented in the schema. The description only recaps the filter names and notes they are optional; it omits board_id scoping and adds no syntax detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('find') and resource ('tasks') plus the exact filter dimensions and scope ('across all your accessible boards'). It is clear on its own, but never distinguishes itself from the similar siblings list_tasks and my_work, leaving the agent to guess which retrieval tool to pick.

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?

'All filters are optional — combine them to narrow results' gives concrete guidance on how to drive the tool and clarifies that an empty call is valid. It stops short of naming when to prefer list_tasks or my_work instead, so no exclusion criteria are offered.

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