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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the auth prerequisite (LoopGantt API key), the account scope, the sort order (earliest end first), and the inclusive day-window semantics. It omits result-size limits, pagination, and truncation behavior, which matter for an unbounded list tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: scope, filter, auth caveat, and sort order in that order. The parenthetical is compact and carries real information.

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 five optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The remaining gap is output expectations — how many tasks come back and whether results are capped.

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 all five parameters are already self-documenting. The description only adds the inclusive-window nuance that contextualizes the `days` parameter; it adds nothing about `agent`, `projectId`, `assigneeId`, or `today` beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and filter: open tasks ending within the next N days, scoped to the connected account, sorted earliest-end-first. The scope ('open', 'today included') is precise enough to distinguish it from a generic task list, though it never names the sibling list_overdue or list_tasks that an agent would need to choose between.

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?

Usage is implied by 'open tasks scheduled to end within the next N days' and the '(today included)' note, which excludes completed and past-due items. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of overlapping siblings such as list_overdue, and no guidance on choosing window size.

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