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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it declares synchronous execution, forbidden task support, that the JSON is internal orchestration state, and gives explicit response handling rules. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and then organized into classification, execution, and response guidance. Each sentence contributes, though the first sentence is redundant with the title and the metadata is slightly list-like.

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?

Despite a rich output schema and annotations, the tool has 9 optional parameters with zero documentation. The description covers response presentation well but omits invocation-time details like when to call the tool and how to populate filters/pagination, so it is incomplete for correct invocation.

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% with 9 undocumented parameters, and the description provides no parameter semantics such as filter behavior, pagination via limit/cursor, or accepted status values. The param names are minimally self-explanatory but the description adds nothing.

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?

The description opens with 'list tasks', a clear verb+resource statement. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling list operations or clarify the task scope beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use list_tasks versus alternatives such as get_task or other list_* tools. The response-formatting instructions ('Use assistantSummary first', 'Never display raw JSON') are useful but do not help with tool selection.

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