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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, and 'Does not modify tasks' largely restates that. The description earns credit for disclosing return shape (paginated task list) and the continuation protocol, which no annotation conveys; it omits default page size and rate/limit behavior.

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, front-loaded with the matching rule and searchable fields, then filters, then pagination. Every sentence adds information; nothing is padding.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration beyond the one-line pointer. All filters and the required query are addressed, and the pagination instruction closes the loop an agent needs to keep searching correctly.

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?

With only 29% schema description coverage, the description carries most of the load and does so: it explains that query matches title or description (case-insensitive literal), and maps tag, location, week_id and completion state to their filter roles. It leaves limit unmentioned and names 'next_cursor' while the schema param is 'cursor', a naming mismatch that could confuse pagination calls.

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 ('Find tasks') plus the exact matching rule: case-insensitive literal text against title or description. That matching semantics is what separates it from list_tasks, which has no query filter, so an agent can route between them without opening either 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?

Gives clear operating context: which filters narrow the search and how to page ('reuse the same filters with next_cursor to continue'). It stops short of naming an alternative such as list_tasks for the no-query case, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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