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

readOnlyHint=true already communicates that the operation is non-mutating; the description adds that results are scoped to the current user and filterable. It does not disclose sorting, pagination, or the fact that omitting project uses the default project, though the latter is present in the schema's project description.

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?

The description is one short sentence, front-loads the action and resource, and contains no filler or repetition.

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 read-only list with no required parameters and complete schema coverage, the description plus schema covers purpose, scope, filters, defaults, and limits. It is slightly incomplete as standalone guidance because it doesn't name alternatives or mention the default-project fallback in the description, but those are covered in structured data.

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?

The schema documents all four parameters with defaults and enum constraints (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. It confirms project/status/due are optional filters, but adds nothing about the limit parameter or allowed values.

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 names a concrete action ('geeft ... terug', returns) and resource ('taken', tasks), and adds that they are the user's own tasks with optional filters by project, status, and deadline. This is enough to distinguish it from write-oriented task siblings and from note/project lister tools.

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 implied: call this when you need to retrieve tasks and possibly filter them. There is no explicit 'use when/when not' statement or reference to sibling alternatives like search_notes for note text or complete_task for status changes.

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