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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the notable operational facts: an API key is required, results span every reachable project, and ordering defaults to most-recently-changed. It also tells the agent what each row contains (the task id). It omits return shape beyond the id and any rate-limit or page-size caveats, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded: scope and ordering first, then use cases, then the row contract. Not a word is spent restating the tool name or repeating schema text verbatim.

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 an 11-parameter, filter-heavy read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers auth, scope, ordering, the key date filter and the row's identifying field. What an agent still lacks is a picture of the remaining row fields and pagination expectations, though the cursor parameter documents paging itself.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by framing updatedSince as "since I last looked" and by tying the returned id to update_task/complete_task. Other parameters (status, openOnly, agent, cursor) are left entirely to the schema, which handles them adequately.

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 tasks") plus an explicit scope ("the connected LoopGantt ACCOUNT ... across every project the account can reach") and default ordering ("most recently changed first"). The account-wide framing implicitly separates it from project-scoped and due-date-scoped siblings like list_projects, list_overdue and list_due_soon.

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?

Gives three concrete use cases ("what am I working on", finding a task before changing it, catching up on what moved) and explains the updatedSince shortcut for the third. It also routes forward to update_task and complete_task by noting the rows carry their required task id. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance, e.g. deferring to list_overdue or list_due_soon for date-driven queries.

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