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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by scoping results to today/tomorrow and noting that the returned refs are intended to be used afterward, which goes beyond the structured 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?

Two short sentences, both information-dense and front-loaded. The first identifies the resource and fields; the second states its intended role in the workflow. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with strong annotations, the description supplies the key missing context: what data comes back and why the agent should call it. An output schema is absent, but the description names the essential fields, making the tool callable and understandable.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description bears no burden for parameter documentation; the schema already covers everything. The description appropriately focuses on return content rather than inputs, matching the zero-parameter baseline.

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 it returns today/tomorrow tasks with id, date, and priority, which is a specific resource and scope. It also indicates a bootstrap role ('Call first to get refs'), distinguishing it from task mutation and subtask tools without opening schemas.

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?

'Call first to get refs' provides an explicit when-to-use instruction, positioning this as an initial retrieval step. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but with zero parameters and a clear read-only scope, the context is sufficient.

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