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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context beyond it. "Grouped by status" is a genuine output-shape detail not found in annotations, but pagination behavior, default ordering, and the effect of combining multiple filters are left unstated (the default limit only appears in the schema).

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 short sentences with the resource and grouping stated up front, and no wasted clauses. It is efficient, though the second sentence is thin enough that it borders on 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 simple filtered-list tool with a fully described schema and a readOnly annotation, the essentials for invocation are present. What is missing is filter-combination behavior and any guidance on interpreting the status grouping, which matters mildly for a triage tool with no output schema.

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 100%, so all four parameters (limit, status, priority, project_id) are already documented with defaults and enums. The description adds no further parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, keeping this at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List tasks") and adds that results are grouped by status, so the agent knows what it gets back. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like taskhold_search or taskhold_get_summary, which a reader would have to infer.

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?

"Use this to see what to work on" implies a browsing/triage scenario but names no alternatives and states no exclusions. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer taskhold_search (text matching) or taskhold_get_current (single active task) instead.

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