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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: default sort order, that cards omit bodies unless include_body is true, and that clients render an app view. It doesn't mention pagination defaults or auth needs, but the added detail is substantive.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then the body-default caveat, then client rendering. Each sentence earns its place with no 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure needn't be explained, yet the description usefully clarifies cards-vs-body behavior. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, nothing needed to invoke this correctly 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%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters in detail. The description only restates the filter dimensions (status, component, assignee, kind) at a high level and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

Specific verb+resource ('List tasks') with scope details: ordering (most-recently-updated first), filter dimensions, and the framing 'the roadmap/board view of work'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `fetch`, which handles single-task reads.

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?

Explicit routing: use this for listing filtered tasks, use `fetch` to read one task in full. It also gives client-specific guidance — summarize the rendered board rather than repeating every task — which is genuinely actionable when-not guidance.

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