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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: 'No authentication required' and the explicit clarification that it does not assign or reserve work, plus a brief note on what is returned.

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, each earning its place: purpose and scope first, return/behavior second, next-step routing third. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema present, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (task IDs, questions, role requirements), and it covers auth requirements, non-mutating behavior and the follow-up tool. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 both parameters (limit, agent_type) are fully documented with defaults, bounds and enum semantics. The description only restates the agent_type filter at a high level, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 public unresolved tasks) plus ordering (priority) and filtering (roles compatible with agent_type). It explicitly contrasts with assignment/reservation work, which separates it from sibling assign_cassie_task, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Names the downstream alternative explicitly: 'Use submit_cassie_note to contribute an answer,' which tells the agent what to do after reading questions. It also rules out assignment/reservation behavior, implicitly routing to assign_cassie_task, though it never states an explicit when-not-to-call condition.

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