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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine value by enumerating what comes back (titles, statuses, due dates, notes), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits pagination behavior and the fact that hidden/completed tasks are excluded by default, both of which affect result interpretation.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first, return payload second, with no filler or redundancy. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, the description's return-field summary fills the main gap, and the annotations handle safety while the schema handles parameters. Remaining shortfalls are minor: no mention of result volume/pagination limits or filtering defaults.

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%, with each of the four parameters documented including defaults and the '@default' shorthand, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 tasks") and scopes it to "a specific task list," which separates it from the sibling gws-mcp__tasks_list that enumerates task lists themselves. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation requires the reader to infer it from the resource noun.

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: the phrase "in a specific task list" signals that a list identifier must already be known, but the description never states when to choose this over tasks_list or tasks_search-style alternatives. The useful routing hint ("use tasks_list to find IDs") lives in the schema for tasklist_id, not in the description.

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