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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns statuses and that 'submitted' tasks need review, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or whether the list is limited to open tasks vs all historical tasks.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds actionable guidance. No wasted words.

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 list tool with no required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could mention whether the list is paginated or sorted, but the core usage and the key status meaning are covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the meaning of the 'submitted' status in the context of the returned list, which is helpful, but doesn't add detail about the status filter beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the tool lists tasks the user has posted, with statuses, and distinguishes it from the broader marketplace listing tool. The verb 'List' plus the resource 'tasks you have posted' is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use it (to see your own posted tasks) and even highlights a key action trigger: tasks with status 'submitted' need review. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list makes the distinction clear enough.

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