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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results default to open items of all kinds unless filters override, which is not inferable from the schema alone. It does not mention return shape or pagination, but the default-status disclosure adds meaningful behavioral context.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then packs filter dimensions and default behavior into the second sentence efficiently.

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 an 8-parameter optional filter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main query axes and default behavior. It does not mention pagination, result shape, or how it relates to sibling list tools, leaving it minimally complete rather than fully specified.

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 50%, leaving limit, offset, kind, and status without full descriptions. The description partially compensates by naming the key filter dimensions and clarifying the default status value. It does not explain limit/offset semantics or enumerate kind/status values beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List tasks/events/meetings for the user.' It also enumerates filter dimensions, which clarifies scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling activity_list, but the item categories are clear enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use tasks_list versus alternatives like activity_list or tasks_get. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'List', and no exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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