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

Annotations already cover the safe, idempotent read profile, so the description's added value is the non-obvious bits: default ordering (newest first) and that each row carries a version used for optimistic concurrency in update_task. It omits pagination behavior despite limit/cursor being present, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the scope and ordering come first, follow-up details are parenthetical, and the update_task hand-off closes it out. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, return formatting need not be explained, and the version-number contract is the critical extra context supplied. The one missing piece is pagination guidance (max page size, cursor continuation), which matters for a list tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains task_id, status, project_id, overdue, and responsible_member_id, but says nothing about limit (capped at 50) or how cursor is obtained and reused, leaving two of seven parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 the resource (tasks in shared projects), the ordering (newest first), and the filtered-list nature of the operation, then explicitly says passing task_id returns exactly one task. That contrast makes it distinguishable from get_task without opening either schema.

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 clearly names when to use the list form versus the single-fetch form via task_id, and it flags the round-trip to update_task with expected_version. It does not name a sibling alternative by name or state exclusions (e.g., when to prefer search or get_task outright), so it stops short of top marks.

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