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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape and meaning of each returned row (predecessor/successor ids and titles, dependency type with its four enum values, lag in days), which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the addressing modes, then the return shape, then the routing caveat. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (task ids/titles, dependency type enum, lag), and pagination is covered by the limit/cursor schema. For a read-only list tool with strong annotations, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 a high 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by framing taskId as matching deps where the task is 'predecessor or successor' and by stating the mutual exclusivity/OR relationship between taskId and projectId, clarifying semantics the schema states only tersely.

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+resource ('List TaskDependency rows') and immediately distinguishes its two access modes (by projectId vs taskId). It also names the sibling that supersedes it for a related need (get_plan), so an agent can separate it from get_plan, link_dependency, and update_dependency 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?

Gives explicit either/or usage ('Specify projectId ... OR taskId') with the meaning of each, plus a clear alternative routing rule: 'PREFER get_plan when you need the full dependency graph + the tasks.' This is the when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance done right.

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