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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still discloses the important behavioral traits: unfinished-only default, 20 per location, bounded paging with has_more and next_cursor, and a warning that counts are not complete. It doesn't state what happens at the schema maximum of 50 or the cost/latency of the aggregate call, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences: what is returned first, defaults second, pagination continuation third, then a closing scope caveat. Every sentence carries load and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 an output schema present the description need not document response shapes, yet it still explains has_more and next_cursor so the agent can page correctly. For a two-optional-parameter read-only aggregate, nothing needed to call it 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?

The schema documents include_completed but leaves per_location_limit with only bounds and no description. The description compensates by supplying the default of 20 tasks per location and the unfinished-by-default semantics, adding meaning the schema lacks.

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 enumerates exactly what is returned: week dates, all tags, and a bounded first page of tasks across this week, next week, and backlog. It reads as a single aggregate call, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling primitives get_week_info, list_tags, and list_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?

Explicitly frames itself as a 'planning overview, not an atomic database snapshot or a complete count,' and routes the agent to list_tasks with the same location, week_id, and include_completed filters for full pagination. Clear context and a named alternative; only the choice between this and the atomic siblings for a single lookup is left implicit.

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