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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is narrower. It adds the two behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from the annotations: results default to unfinished tasks only and are ordered most-urgent-first. It omits pagination behavior tied to limit, and the trailing 'Free' is unexplained and adds no operational meaning.

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 with the scope and filter set front-loaded, which is the right ordering for scanning. The final word 'Free' earns no place and is ambiguous (no-cost? free-text?), a small blemish on an otherwise dense statement.

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 9 optional parameters, near-zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting on filters and defaults, leaving only limit/pagination unaddressed. That is close to complete for a read-only list tool whose safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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 only 11%, so the description carries most of the burden and largely does: status, assignee, label, priority, due date, query ('words in the title and description'), project, and include_finished are all named and contextualized. Only 'limit' goes unexplained, and the 'due date' phrasing does not clarify that the actual parameter is a due_before cutoff.

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?

Names the resource (tasks) and its scope (across projects or within one) and enumerates the filter axes, so the agent knows this is a filtered task listing rather than a single-record fetch. The action verb ('list'/'find') is only implied by the title, and there is no explicit distinction from siblings like tasks_get or crm_list_tasks, keeping it at 4.

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?

It conveys the default semantics of the query ('open tasks only, unless include_finished; most urgent first'), which implicitly tells the agent when the result set is appropriate. But it never states when to prefer this over tasks_get, projects_board, or crm_list_tasks, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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