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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already establish this as a safe, closed read, so the description only needs to add operating context. It does add the non-obvious default filtering rule (open + visible to you), which materially affects results, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite a cursor parameter being present.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action and the default scope before the override. The telegraphic 'mine=created|assigned|applied' syntax is compact but readable; no sentence is wasted, though the compression trades away some clarity.

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?

A six-parameter discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations explaining result shape needs more than two sentences. The keyword search, tag filter, status enumeration, and paging semantics are all left for the agent to guess, so an agent cannot reliably construct a filtered or paginated query from this description alone.

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 50%; 'q' and 'tag' are one-word hints and 'status', 'limit', and 'mine' carry no schema descriptions. The description rescues exactly one of these by explaining the three 'mine' enum values, leaving 'status' (7 enum values) and the limit/cursor interaction undocumented.

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 ('Find tasks') plus the default scope ('open tasks visible to you'), which lets an agent distinguish a search/list operation from the singular read sibling get_task. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 partial routing guidance: default = open tasks visible to you, and 'mine=created|assigned|applied lists your own'. That covers two common modes but never says when to prefer this over get_task, list_applications, or search_services, and offers no when-not-to-use condition.

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