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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavior the annotations cannot: a hard page size of ten, the ordering rule for recent and archived (by completion time), and the cursor-resumption rule. It does not discuss rate limits or filter defaults, so 4 rather than 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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and page size; nothing is wasted. The brief mention of returned fields (status line, created time, last digits) is slightly redundant with the output schema but does aid quick scanning.

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 read-only, non-destructive list with a full schema and an output schema, the description supplies everything needed: scope, page size, ordering, cursor continuation, and a fallback path. The remaining gap is only the absence of guidance relative to other list/search siblings.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description genuinely adds semantics: the cursor must be passed back with the same filters, and statusGroup ordering behavior (recent/archived by completion time) is stated in prose. That is meaningful guidance beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 (list the owner's tasks) plus scope (up to ten) and the sibling it defers to ('get_task has the details'). An agent can distinguish this from get_task or find_task without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes to get_task for detail and instructs the agent to ask the owner when the intended task is ambiguous, and explains cursor continuation ('Follow nextCursor with the same filters'). It stops short of stating when to prefer the other list/search siblings (e.g. search_calls, find_task), so it is not a full 5.

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