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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which align with listing tasks. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned (ID, name, completion, assignee, due date), which is not in the annotations or input schema. No contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and key information. Every sentence is informative and concise. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simplicity and the presence of a detailed output schema (though not shown), the description covers the essential return fields and required parameter. Sibling tools provide additional context. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (limit, project, completed_since). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'Requires project ID' but that is already in the schema's required field. Baseline score 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 it lists tasks in a project, specifying the verb 'List' and resource 'tasks'. It distinguishes from siblings like asana_search_tasks by focusing on a single project and listing all tasks. The returned fields are explicitly mentioned.

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?

The description states 'Requires project ID', giving a clear context for use. It implies when to use: when you need all tasks from a specific project. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like asana_search_tasks or asana_get_task, though the sibling list provides context.

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