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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things beyond that: the required API-key scope `tasks:read` (an auth prerequisite) and cursor pagination behavior. It does not disclose the relationship object shape or error behavior for an invalid ref.

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 short sentences with the scope qualifier front-loaded, then pagination, then auth scope. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, pagination, and auth but says nothing about what a returned relationship contains (type/direction/target task) or what happens if `ref` is unknown. Enough to call it, not enough to interpret results confidently.

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 only 40%, and the required `ref` parameter has no schema description at all; the description only hints at its meaning via 'the task'. `limit` and `cursor` get one word ('Cursor-paginated'), while `account` and `workspace` are fully documented in the schema itself. Partial compensation, not full.

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 all relationships') and adds a scoping qualifier ('where the task is owner OR child') that tells the agent exactly which relationships are returned. It implicitly contrasts with pm_create_task_relationship / pm_delete_task_relationship by being the read path, but never names them, so it falls short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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: an agent infers it should call this to enumerate relationships for a given task, and 'Cursor-paginated' hints at iteration. There is no explicit when-to-use, no precondition on `ref`, and no statement of when a different tool (e.g. pm_get_task) would be preferable.

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