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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the global cross-agency default and the guarantee that each row includes agency_id and agency_name. This helps callers understand scoping behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded, then filter capabilities, then a practical row-level detail. 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?

For a read-only list call with 15 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives essentials: scope, default behavior, available filters, and a useful note about returned columns. It does not enumerate all filters or return fields, but the high schema coverage fills most gaps, making this sufficiently complete.

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 73%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description names several key filters (status, role, client_id, agency_id) and clarifies the global default, adding some semantic value. However, it does not compensate for all the less-documented parameters or explain interactions such as mine versus role.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List Tango tasks visible to the signed-in user') and clarifies the global, cross-agency scope. It clearly communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_tasks tool.

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 description gives clear context on when this is the right tool: to list tasks visible to the current user globally by default, with optional filters. It also tells callers not to rely on active-agency state because every row carries agency_id and agency_name. It does not name alternatives explicitly, so it does not reach a 5.

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