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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds only the organizational scoping and the fact that filters are optional; it says nothing about default page size (10), the hard max of 20 per page, or default sort behavior, which matter for a listing tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the first but does add return information and the filter list, so it earns its place.

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?

For a 10-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits pagination/sorting/search entirely and gives no hint of the result shape beyond "tasks." Annotations and the fully-described schema carry most of the burden, so the gap is modest rather than critical.

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 ten parameters including enums and defaults are already documented in the schema. The description merely echoes four filter dimensions (status, project, assignee, date range) without adding semantics such as ID formats or how `search` interacts with the other filters, so 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?

The description opens with a clear verb+resource ("List tasks") and adds scope ("for the current organization"), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not need sibling differentiation because no other list_* tool targets tasks, but it also does not call that out.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the read path for tasks versus create_task/delete_task, but the description never says when to use it or when a fetch/other listing tool would be preferable. There is no guidance on paging through results when more than one page exists.

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