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

Beyond the read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world annotations, the description discloses ordering (newest to oldest), expiry (feedback tasks and findings expire 30 days after creation), pagination behavior (empty page with continuation cursor), and the semantic distinction that feedback summaries are recorded states rather than live polling. These are substantive behavioral details the annotations do not cover.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and each sentence adds relevant operational context. It is slightly dense with caveats, but there is no clearly wasted wording.

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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and structured input schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers purpose, scope, ordering, expiry, pagination quirks, and a boundary against professional service requests.

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 67%, with cursor and invention_id already described in the schema. The description adds some meaning around optional innovation filtering and pagination behavior, but it does not explain the limit parameter at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate for this medium schema coverage.

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 ('Lists'), resource ('automated tasks'), scope ('current user’s ... connected organisation'), ordering ('newest to oldest'), optional innovation filter, and included status. It also distinguishes some boundaries ('Professional service requests are separate'), but does not explicitly name the sibling get_task_status or otherwise fully differentiate from every alternative.

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?

Provides clear usage context: recovers task IDs after a lost response or conversation, and notes pagination can return an empty page with a continuation cursor. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus get_task_status or other task-related siblings, so it lacks full alternative guidance.

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