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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds non-obvious behavior: results are ordered most-recently-updated-first, the list is not paged, and a task's blocker is cleared by starting, completing or changing status — lifecycle context that shapes how an agent interprets stale results. It stops short of permission or volume limits, so not a 5.

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 operation and ordering, then the definition of 'blocked', then routing advice — a sensible progression with no filler sentences. It is denser than strictly necessary (the blocker-clearing clause could be tighter), but every sentence 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (number as link, title, ID, blocker reason) and the sort order. Combined with annotations covering safety and the simple two-parameter surface, nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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% with only two parameters, and the schema already explains both projectId and the required context string. The description adds nothing parameter-specific (no hint about which project scope is valid or how projectId relates to blocking), so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List every blocked task in a project'), then defines the criterion for membership ('To Do or In Progress tasks with a blocker recorded by task_add_blocker or in the app') and enumerates the fields returned. That definition alone separates it from the generic list_tasks sibling, which an agent could otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the moment to call it ('Check it before picking new work, so you can resume or unblock existing work first') and names two alternatives with their distinct roles: get_task for full details, task_start to resume one. When-to-use, when-to-use-something-else, and why are all present.

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