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 the useful default-filter behavior (open tasks only), but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior when limit is exceeded, or result shape.

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 with zero filler; the resource and the default filter are front-loaded, and everything stated earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, this is close to complete. Only minor gaps remain (ordering, return shape), and with no output schema the omission of return details is a small deduction rather than a failure.

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 both parameters are already documented with defaults and maximums. The description's 'Open tasks by default' contextualizes include_done but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the user's Goptin to-do list') and clarifies the three included task sources (manual, AI-extracted, ClickUp-synced). No sibling tool offers an alternative task listing, so differentiation is largely moot, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 states the default behavior ('Open tasks by default'), which implies when completed tasks appear, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or prerequisites. With no competing list tool among siblings, implied guidance is arguably sufficient, though an explicit note about when to set include_done would be stronger.

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