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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating 'Read-only and does not consume points,' adding cost transparency. It also discloses the ownership scope ('owned by the current Bearer API key') and ordering ('newest first'), which are not in the 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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose, then provide pagination and cost/safety details. Every clause adds value, with no filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's relative simplicity (list with pagination) and the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, ownership, ordering, pagination, and read-only/cost behavior. It is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'limit' and 'before_id'. The description only adds the phrase 'Use next_before_id for cursor pagination,' which essentially restates the schema's 'before_id' description. Thus it does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists recent tasks owned by the current Bearer API key, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent tasks'). It also specifies ordering ('newest first') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle individual tasks (e.g., get_task_status) or creation/cancellation.

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?

Provides clear context of use: listing recent tasks for the authenticated API key. Includes pagination guidance ('Use next_before_id for cursor pagination'), implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives for specific task status lookups, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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