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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that Tango persists a cursor and that repeated calls only return new items, implying a stateful, cursor-advancing poll. It does not explicitly state that the cursor advances by default, though advance_cursor in the schema hints at this.

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 sentences with no filler. The description front-loads what the tool returns, then gives when to call it, then explains cursor behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 explains the return categories, cursor semantics, and invocation timing. Since there is no output schema, this conceptual description of returns is helpful. It could slightly expand on default limit behavior or how advance_cursor interacts with the stored cursor, but these are also covered in the schema.

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 75%: limit has no description, while since, worker, and advance_cursor do. The free-text description itself does not explain any parameter semantics, so it adds little beyond the schema. The undocumented limit parameter is a clear gap, but the schema covers most parameters.

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 opens with a specific behavior: 'Cursor-based poll: returns tasks newly assigned to you, tasks whose client/project context changed under you, and the context objects that were revised since your last check-in.' This clearly names the resource and what the tool does, and the notion of incremental newness distinguishes it from related sibling tools like pull_next_task or list_my_tasks.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Call this at the start of every session or turn, and on your polling interval.' This is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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