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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent. It adds one useful behavioral default, that completed tasks are excluded, plus concrete filter examples, but does not go beyond that with rate limits, auth state, or pagination caveats.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by optional scoping. No wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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 list tool with full parameter descriptions, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential usage. A minor omission is whether project_id and filter can be combined, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description adds marginal value with an extra filter example ('#Work & p1'), but the schema carries the semantic load; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 active (incomplete) Todoist tasks.' The scope is clear (incomplete only) and the optional filters are named. This distinguishes it from siblings like todoist_create_task, todoist_complete_task, and todoist_list_projects.

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 invocation context: use for active Todoist tasks, optionally narrowed by project_id or a Todoist filter. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer alternatives, but the read-only listing role is obvious against mutation and project-listing siblings.

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