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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: default status is open, results are ordered soonest first, each task includes its associated contact (id, name, email), and the call is free.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and filters, and every clause except possibly "Free" carries useful information. It is appropriately sized, though the fragment style and unexplained "Free" leave a little ambiguity.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description usefully explains ordering and the embedded contact fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it should also document the limit/pagination behavior and the due_before format to be fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions status (default open), contact_id, and due_before, but it completely omits the limit parameter, does not enumerate the status values, and gives no format for due_before. It therefore only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 states the resource (tasks), primary filter (status, default open), optional filters (contact or due before a time), ordering (soonest first), and included contact fields. It clearly distinguishes this from mutation siblings like crm_create_task and crm_complete_task, though it does not explicitly differentiate from generic tasks_list or hr_tasks.

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 gives useful implied usage: default open status, optional contact filter, optional due-before filter. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of tasks_list, hr_tasks, or other task-listing siblings, and it does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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