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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, non-destructive, non-open-world read, so the description only needs to add context. It does: the result is prioritized, and the 'quiet' bucket has a concrete 10-day staleness threshold, plus a definition of what 'waiting on them' means. It omits scope/authorization (whose tasks are returned) and any size or pagination notes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the lead clause states the point immediately. It is slightly run-on, packing four buckets plus a parenthetical definition into one line, which costs a little readability but not waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, yet much of the description is spent describing result contents and ordering. What is left thin is the selection-side information: when this beats the sibling task or task_context, and whose tasks are returned when project is omitted.

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% – the single optional `project` parameter is documented in full, including its slug format and the default behavior when omitted. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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?

It states a clear scope: the tasks a person must do today or next, broken into named buckets (next step with reason, waiting-on-you, yours now, untouched for ten days). That is specific enough to distinguish it in spirit from single-task siblings. It never names or contrasts a sibling (task, task_context, list), and the 'person' is never defined, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'today' – an agent can infer 'call this to see what needs attention now.' There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion conditions, and no pointer to the alternatives (task, task_context, list, my_parts) that an agent would otherwise have to disambiguate by trial.

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