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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which sets the bar lower. The description adds a real constraint ('tasks you can see' visibility scoping), but says nothing about pagination, default filtering behavior, or result volume caps, so it is only moderately additive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage guidance and a docs link. No filler, though the raw API-reference URL consumes space without adding invocation value.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it omits how results are bounded/ordered and its 'with any human answers' phrasing is mildly at odds with the schema default of include_answered=false.

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 67%: task_id and include_answered carry their own descriptions, while limit is undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., what limit defaults to or how ordering works), so 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 and resource ('List questions raised on tasks') plus a scope qualifier ('tasks you can see') and notes answers are included. It is easy to distinguish from ask_human/answer_question, though it does not explicitly contrast with adjacent readers like get_task_activity or list_threads.

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 explicit situational guidance: 'Use this after ask_human to check whether a human has replied before you resume work.' That names the alternative (ask_human) and the triggering condition. It lacks a when-not-to-use clause, so it falls 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.