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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that - no note on project scoping, permissions, or result completeness - so it contributes nothing the structured data does not already carry.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient and well-structured, though quite sparse relative to what could be conveyed.

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?

Given the read-only annotations, a fully documented 3-parameter schema, and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly. Only marginal behavioral detail, such as pagination hints, is absent and that is already handled by 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 100%, with projectId, limit, and after all documented in-schema (including cursor semantics). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond an implicit project scoping, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List valid status IDs') and adds scope ('for creating or updating tasks in a project'). It is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like list_projects or list_tasks, though it does not name a sibling tool explicitly.

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 clear usage context by tying the returned IDs to the create/update task workflow, so an agent knows when this is relevant. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, but the operative context is unambiguous.

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