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

Annotations already declare this a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description adds real behavioral context: results span all agencies by default, rows always carry agency_id + agency_name so callers can scope deliberately, and the key quirk that work routed to you lands in 'assigned' not 'queued'. It does not cover pagination/return shape, but with no output schema and the safety profile already annotated, this is solid added value.

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-loads purpose and scope, then filters, then the critical status pitfall, then return-row context. Sentences are tight, though the trailing API-reference URL is marginally disposable and the filter-options sentence partly overlaps the schema.

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 15-param, no-required-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the global scoping default, row contents, and the biggest correctness trap. Gaps are the absence of sibling routing (search_tasks/list_client_tasks) and no note on result volume/pagination beyond the schema's limit.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning; the description only names status/role/client_id/agency_id out of 15 params. Its most useful parameter insight (status='assigned' vs 'queued') largely duplicates the schema's own status description, and undocumented params like role and client_id remain unclarified. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (list), resource (Tango tasks), and scope (visible to the signed-in user, across every agency, global by default). The explicit global-by-default framing cleanly separates it from agency-scoped or client-scoped listers like list_client_tasks without the agent needing to open a schema.

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?

Gives strong context ('use for your work, default global') and an explicit exclusion: do NOT pass status='queued' when checking for your own tasks, since those are 'assigned'. It does not name sibling alternatives such as search_tasks or list_client_tasks, so routing between similar listers is left to inference.

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