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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it states the API-key requirement, discloses that deleted tasks are NOT reported (a meaningful blind spot), and explains cursor resumption guarantees (no duplicates, no same-millisecond skips). These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before building a polling loop.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the polling protocol and then the correctness guarantees. Dense but every sentence carries information; the parenthetical '(e.g. when you last looked)' is slightly chatty but aids interpretation.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by describing what comes back (changed tasks plus a cursor) and how to feed it forward. It does not describe the reply's field shape or ordering, but for a delta-feed tool the critical semantics — deletions excluded, cursor exactness — are covered.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the interaction between 'since' and 'cursor' as a coupled pair ('pass back BOTH the since and the cursor') and clarifying that cursor resumes after the last reported task. It adds no detail on the 'agent' or 'projectId' filters, which the schema already handles.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('What changed in the connected LoopGantt ACCOUNT since an instant') and enumerates the three change classes it reports: created, now-done, otherwise updated. This clearly separates it from the sibling listers (list_tasks, list_due_soon) which report state rather than deltas.

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 frames the polling workflow: first call pass only 'since', subsequent calls pass back both 'since' and the prior 'cursor'. That is clear when-to-use guidance for its intended use case, but it never contrasts itself with list_tasks or list_overdue for one-shot state reads, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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