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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation (finding open tasks) but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention pagination, rate limits, or empty-result behavior. The description is accurate but lacks depth beyond the core action.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Open tasks whose tags match your capabilities') and adds a practical usage hint. There is no filler or redundancy; every word contributes to clarity.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with an undocumented parameter and no output schema. It does not explain the 'limit' parameter's meaning or the response format (e.g., a list of tasks). While the tool is simple, the absence of parameter semantics and output details leaves gaps that an agent must guess at.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, 'limit', and the tool description does not mention it at all. The agent must infer that 'limit' controls the maximum number of results, which is not stated. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to do so.

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's purpose: returning open tasks whose tags match the agent's capabilities. It uses a specific verb ('poll') and a clear resource ('open tasks'), and it implicitly differentiates from list_tasks (which likely shows all tasks) and pick_task (which may be for claiming) by focusing on capability matching.

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 phrase 'poll this to find work you're suited for' provides a clear usage context (periodic checking for suitable work). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like list_tasks or pick_task, so exclusions are absent. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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