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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely valuable behavioral trait beyond the schema: amounts come back as bare numbers with no currency, and get_organization_settings must be called for currency_code before quoting one. That cross-tool dependency is real context the annotations could not supply.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and scope, then filters, then the one non-obvious caveat. No filler and nothing buried.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters and the crucial currency caveat that the schema cannot express. It stops short of describing the returned task fields or pagination behavior, but the annotation and schema already handle pagination, so the gap is minor.

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% and every parameter is documented in the input schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description names four filterable dimensions but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides for those fields.

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 and resource ('List project tasks') and clarifies the domain with '(work breakdown structure)', which distinguishes it from task-dependency and phase listers. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state scope limits, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 filter list ('project, phase, status, or priority') implies when the tool is useful, and the currency note hints at a follow-up workflow. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_project_task or list_project_task_dependencies, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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