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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add real value beyond the schema: the 50-result cap, the 'ordered by last updated' sort, and the cross-board scope. It still omits whether archived tasks are included, relevance vs. recency ranking, and any read-only/auth guarantees.

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 tight sentences: purpose and scope first, then the optionality/combinability rule, then the return contract. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly states the return shape (up to 50, ordered by last updated), and it covers scope and filter behavior. Only minor gaps remain, such as archived-task visibility and ranking semantics, but an agent can call this correctly.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only the combination hint ('combine them to narrow results') and notably omits board_id from its filter list.

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+resource ('find tasks') and enumerates the exact filter dimensions plus the scope ('across all your accessible boards'). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_tasks or my_work, which also return tasks, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 this to find tasks... All filters are optional — combine them to narrow results' implies the usage context of a filtered lookup. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_tasks, get_task, or my_work, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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