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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. Beyond that, the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral note: amounts are bare numbers with no currency, so the agent must call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating one. This cross-tool dependency and data-interpretation rule is not in the annotations or schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The currency guidance is slightly tangential for a list tool but is important context and does not bloat the text. Every sentence contributes.

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 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, filtering capabilities, and a key return-value interpretation rule (currency). It omits a general description of the returned task object, but the currency note partially compensates and pagination is handled by the schema.

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 is already documented in the schema. The description repeats the filterable fields (project, phase, status, priority) but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. The currency note concerns return values, not parameters.

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 (List) and resource (project tasks), plus the domain framing '(work breakdown structure)'. It is clearly distinguishable from get_project_task, create_project_task, and list_project_task_dependencies by name and scope.

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 description says what can be filtered (project, phase, status, priority), which implies usage context, but never states when to choose this tool over get_project_task for a single task or when not to use it. No alternatives are named.

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