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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing ordering ('most-overdue first'), the 25-item cap, the `daysOverdue` field, and the fact that rows carry `collaborators`. The one omission is what to do past the cap (no cursor/pagination path is mentioned), which leaves a practical gap.

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?

Front-loads the two user questions the tool answers and the scope before the sibling routing advice. Slightly long at five sentences, and the trailing `collaborators` detail is loosely attached, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields (daysOverdue, collaborators) and the ordering, and it pins down scope and assignee coverage. The only missing piece is how to retrieve results beyond the 25-row cap.

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% and both parameters are already documented there, including the 'Default 25, max 50' limit semantics. The description's notes on projectId narrowing and the limit restate rather than extend the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List tasks that are past their due date and NOT yet DONE'), plus the scope ('across every project visible to the caller'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling, list_my_tasks, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects it ('Use list_my_tasks({overdueOnly:true}) for "MY overdue tasks only"'), and clarifies the exclusions (all assignees, not just mine). The optional projectId narrowing is also framed as a usage decision.

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