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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: DONE tasks are excluded by default, and hasMore/total describe the pagination contract. What it does not cover — result ordering or a hard cap on total retrieval — is minor for a read-only list tool.

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?

The scope and the enriched-vs-base distinction are front-loaded, and the sentences are dense with information rather than filler. The field enumeration ('description, agentBrief, projectName, hasOpenPrompt') is the only slightly listy part, but it earns its place given there is no output 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return shape, including the enrichment fields and the hasMore/total pagination signals, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether a follow-up call is required. Completeness is solid for a four-optional-parameter read tool; only return ordering and truncation behavior are left implicit.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates the filters (status, projectId, includeDone, limit) and repeats the max 50 limit already in the schema, and adds the meaningful default 'excludes DONE tasks' — but it contributes little parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents, and does not clarify how includeDone interacts with an explicit status filter beyond what the schema says.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'List tasks assigned to YOU (the calling agent / user)', and immediately positions itself as an 'Enriched variant of list_my_tasks', naming the sibling it differs from. An agent can distinguish it from list_my_tasks and get_task without opening any 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?

It gives a clear usage motivation: pick the next task and start work 'without a follow-up get_task call', which implicitly routes agents here when they need briefs. The default exclusion of DONE tasks is stated, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer the plain list_my_tasks instead, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully bidirectional.

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