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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context by disclosing the visibility boundary (only the connected operator's tasks plus those of their groups) and that completed tasks are in scope. The 'Escopo/Risco/Efeitos' line merely restates the annotations and adds no new information.

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 short lines with the scope front-loaded and no filler prose. The trailing scope/risk/effects line duplicates annotation data, which is the only wasteful element.

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 a simple read-only list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the essentials are present, but the meaning of the one parameter and the shape/limits of results (ordering, pagination, count) are left unaddressed, which an agent would need to call it with confidence.

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% for the single parameter include_done, so the description must compensate and does not. The parenthetical '(abertas e concluídas)' gestures at status coverage but never explains what include_done does or how it interacts with that claim, leaving it ambiguous whether both statuses are always returned.

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 concrete resource and its scope: tasks belonging to the connected operator and to the groups they belong to, both open and completed. An agent can tell this apart from create_task/update_task (mutations) and from list_jobs (a different resource). It never uses an explicit verb ('lists'), relying on the noun phrase, which is the only small weakness.

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 only implied: the agent infers it should call this to inspect existing tasks. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement and no mention of how it relates to create_task, update_task, or list_jobs, which is the closest potential source of confusion.

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