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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot: the server-side default subset, that an absent filter is not transmitted, and that visibility is constrained by account permissions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and endpoint, then the filter default rule, then limitations. Each sentence earns its place with no padding.

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 should cover return shape and pagination; it mentions grouping by project but not pagination semantics or output fields. Still, it is complete enough for correct invocation given annotations and the schema's param-level docs.

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?

Coverage is 58% across 12 parameters, with the auth/base_url params documented in schema and the enum'd filter/sort_by/order only listed. The description meaningfully clarifies the filter parameter's semantics and omission behavior, but adds nothing for page_size, include_billing, account_id, or order.

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 ('Lists tasks assigned to a user'), names the exact endpoint, and notes the grouping by project. It reads as user-scoped and distinct from sibling list_tasks, though it does not explicitly contrast the two, so it falls just 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?

Gives explicit default behavior (active assigned tasks without a filter) and a when-to-use rule for filter ('use only when you explicitly need another subset'), which is stronger than most. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool for other task queries, so no 5.

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