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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, so the description only needs to add contextual behavior. It adds that results are limited to pages carrying actionable contracts, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination despite a cursor parameter, nor about result ordering or volume.

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?

A single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the verb and core behavior. Tight, though the trailing filter clause is too abstract to earn its place as written.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, with five of six parameters undocumented and the tasks-vs-pages framing unresolved, an agent still lacks enough to call it correctly with filters.

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 only 17% – only 'cursor' is documented. The description's vague 'filtered by text or applicability' does not map onto the six parameters: query, locale, package, version, and framework are left entirely unexplained as to meaning or effect.

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 gives a concrete verb and result set ('List pages with actionable agent contracts'), which is more specific than the bare name list_tasks and separates it from generic listers like list_pages or list_docs. The only friction is the terminology shift from 'tasks' in the name/title to 'pages' in the description, which slightly blurs what a returned item actually is.

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 says results can be 'optionally filtered by text or applicability' but never states when to choose this over list_pages, list_docs, or read_task in the sibling set. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no guidance on combining filters.

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