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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as default exclusion of completed tasks, pagination, or data freshness. It is adequate but not enriching.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists filters. No filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 full schema with 100% coverage, output schema presence, and annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks usage differentiation from siblings, but this is a minor gap overall.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of filters (project, tag, inbox, due today, flagged) partially overlaps with schema descriptions but adds no new meaning. It omits mention of 'limit' and 'include_completed', which are already documented in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Lists tasks from OmniFocus' and enumerates filter options. It is specific about the resource and action, but does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'search_omnifocus_tasks', which may also list tasks with search capabilities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_omnifocus_tasks or list_omnifocus_projects. The description only lists available filters, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without explicit direction.

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