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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the returned data (status, assignee, goal, payment), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits pagination or scoping limits, keeping it from a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned fields, then the payoff. The parenthetical list is slightly dense but every element 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of naming the returned fields and the scoping unit, and annotations cover the safety semantics. Only the request_id format and any result-size limits are left unclear.

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 0% and the single required parameter request_id is undocumented in the schema. The phrase 'of a project/request' hints that request_id identifies the project/request scope, partially compensating, but it does not state the expected format or where the id comes from.

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) and resource (tasks of a project/request), and enumerates the fields returned (status, assignee, goal, payment), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent task tools (reconcile_tasks, update_task, verify_task), so it falls short of a 5.

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 trailing clause 'so you can find work or track the plan' implies the use case but names no alternatives and gives no when-not conditions. An agent must infer that this is the read-side counterpart to update_task/resolve_task.

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