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

Despite readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already covering safety, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: prerequisite filtering, single-screen intentional scope, server-side selection ('our job, not the caller's'), and the unique in-flight marker. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentences, each adding unique value: output summary, design rationale/filtering, and sibling differentiation. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scoping, exclusions, and a distinctive behavioral flag. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description focuses on output semantics, which is appropriate; no parameter explanation is needed.

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 clearly specifies the resource: what the signed-in person should do next (one task, a few lines, and a count). It explicitly contrasts with 'the task list' and points to move_plan, so siblings are distinguishable. The title reinforces the purpose.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use for the next recommended action, avoid for task lists, use move_plan for totals, and note that move_task does not carry the in-flight flag. This leaves little ambiguity about alternatives.

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