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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds one real behavioral trait beyond the annotations — result ordering ('open ones first') — which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about whether closed tasks are included by default, pagination, or result size.

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?

It is short and front-loads the resource scope, but the dangling ellipsis signals truncated or unfinished content, which undermines structure rather than serving conciseness. The scoping information that is present is efficient and waste-free.

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, zero schema coverage on two parameters, and a description that ends mid-thought, an agent is left without a clear picture of the return set (open only or all?) or the role of `all`. For a query tool whose only contract is the description, this falls short.

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 carries the full burden. It does explain the required `goal` parameter as a Trana proposal id sourced from goals_global, which is real added meaning. But the `all` boolean — presumably controlling inclusion of closed tasks — is never mentioned, leaving it guessable only from the 'open ones first' phrase.

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 phrase 'the tasks filed under one global goal' communicates the resource and its scope, but there is no explicit verb (list/query) and no differentiation from sibling task tools like tasks_open or tasks_next. An agent can infer it returns tasks for a goal, but the trailing ellipsis leaves the purpose statement unfinished.

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 usefully states that the goal id comes from goals_global, giving the agent a prerequisite lookup path. However, it never says when to use this tool versus tasks_open, tasks_next, or tasks_next-style siblings, nor any exclusion conditions.

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