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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the record shape returned (subject, property/unit, due date, assignee) and the authorization requirement (user's Cotlet API key with app access). Pagination behavior implied by the cursor parameter is not disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and filters, which is good, but the middle two sentences largely restate the first: 'tasks and work orders with status, due date, property and assignee' is repeated by the returns sentence and the per-item sentence. One combined sentence would carry the same information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully describes the returned item fields, and it names the auth requirement. It stops short of explaining pagination for the cursor parameter, which is the remaining gap for a list endpoint.

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 both status and property_id are already documented in the schema; the description only restates that filtering happens on status or property. The cursor parameter and its pagination role are not elaborated. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the detail.

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 a specific verb (list) and resource (tasks and work orders), and enumerates the concepts the items carry (status, due date, property, assignee). An agent can distinguish this from sibling doorloop_create_task without opening the 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?

The description says results can be filtered by status or property, which implies the appropriate read/list context, but never states when to reach for this tool versus another. With no competing list-tasks sibling, the omission is minor, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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