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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it defines the inclusion criteria, states the pagination contract (`limit` default 20 max 50, follow `next_offset` until null), describes the per-item payload (project, LAB key, what it lacks, how to fix), and notes write responses surface the top five as `pending_on_you`. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the inclusion definition, then remediation, then pagination — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense with parenthetical asides and runs long for a two-parameter read tool, but each sentence carries actionable content rather than restating structured fields.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the item shape (project, LAB key, what is missing, fix hint) and the `next_offset` termination rule. For a read-only paginated list whose annotations already cover the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on results.

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 coverage is 100%, so `limit` and `offset` are already documented; the description restates the defaults and adds the non-obvious paging protocol ("follow `next_offset` until it is null"), which is semantics the schema cannot express. It stops short of anything else parameter-specific, so it is a modest add over the schema baseline.

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 ("Lists every task YOU own or created that is still an incomplete record") and then enumerates exactly which conditions qualify as a hole (missing assignee, dates, priority, points, hours, parent, done-without-hours). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_project_alerts by noting these are "the same holes the alert engine reports to the team."

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?

Explicit remediation routing: work items with `update_task` (ids sourced from `get_project_team` / `get_project_structure`) and `log_time`, plus a constraint to ask the person for dates/estimates and "never invent them." It even prescribes the exact sequence for the edge case of hours on a done task (reopen to in_progress, log, close again).

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