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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: each link contains `predecessor`, `successor`, `dependency_type`, `lag_days`, and an `app_url` deep link to the successor's drawer. It also clarifies the bidirectional task filter behavior.

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?

The description is dense but well-organized and front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds useful information about scope, filtering, or result contents. It avoids fluff and is appropriately sized for a listing tool.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description lists the key fields returned and explains the deep-link behavior. It is mostly complete for a read-only listing tool, though it could explicitly mention pagination behavior and the fact that the schema declares no required parameters.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It usefully identifies `company_id`/`project_id` as path params and explains the semantics of `task`, but it does not explain `page` or `page_size` behavior in any detail, nor does it clarify that no parameters are required at the schema level.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb, 'List the scheduling dependencies of a project', and names the scoping parameters (`company_id` + `project_id`). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like `create_taskdependencies`, `destroy_taskdependencies`, and `retrieve_taskdependencies`.

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?

It explains when to use the `task` parameter: to get only links touching that task, on either side, including both blocking and dependent links. It does not explicitly compare against `retrieve_taskdependencies` for fetching a single dependency, but the filter guidance is clear and useful.

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