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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: results are scoped to 'visible' tasks, effort estimates are self-declared rather than verified, and pagination requires re-issuing the same filters with next_cursor.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and filters followed by the pagination rule. Minimal waste, though 'estimates are declarations' is terse to the point of ambiguity.

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?

For an 8-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core filtering story and pagination but leaves half the parameters and the result shape to inference. It is minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, yet it only glosses skill, effort, difficulty and review state — q, limit, state and cursor are unexplained. It also names 'next_cursor' while the parameter is actually 'cursor', a minor naming mismatch.

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 ('Find visible tasks') and names the filter dimensions it operates over. It does not differentiate itself from the singular sibling commons_task or commons_find_threads, so an agent must infer the list-vs-single distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter list, and pagination guidance ('Follow next_cursor with the same filters') is provided. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over commons_task or commons_find_threads, and no exclusions.

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