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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the returned fields and the soonest-deadline-first ordering, which the agent cannot infer from the annotations or schema. It omits pagination behavior and what happens at the default of 100, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, both front-loaded and free of filler: what is returned plus ordering first, then what can be filtered. No repetition of the title and no wasted clauses.

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 tool with four optional parameters, no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the necessary return shape and ordering. It is only slightly short of complete because it says nothing about result size limits or pagination behavior despite a 300-cap limit parameter.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter is described in the schema, including the enum meanings for status and phase and the default limit. The description restates the filterable fields but adds no syntax, format or interaction detail (e.g., whether filters combine with AND), so the schema is doing the work and 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?

"Lists the couple's tasks with their deadline, status and planning phase, soonest deadline first" gives a specific verb, a specific resource, the returned attributes and the sort order. It does not name a sibling to contrast with, but the resource itself is distinct from list-ideas, list-vendors and list-moments, so confusion risk is low.

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?

The second sentence implies usage by naming the three filter dimensions (status, phase, title words), which tells an agent when this tool is the right retrieval call. It never states when not to use it, nor does it point to any alternative such as a task-detail or search tool, so guidance stops at the implied level.

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