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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the visibility scoping rule — a person sees everything, an agent sees only its own tasks — which is non-obvious behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then scope behavior, then filter hints. No filler and every clause earns its place.

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?

With 14 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description gives the essential behavioral nuance (default visibility scoping) that the schema cannot convey. It falls short only on distinguishing the many overlapping identity filters, but is otherwise adequate.

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 71%, so the schema documents most parameters itself. The description names only three of the fourteen (assignee, status, overdue) as filters, adding marginal meaning but not clarifying the agent_id/assignee/created_by_me distinctions.

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 tasks in this workspace") and clarifies scope with the default-visibility note. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from siblings such as tasks_get or tasks_create, so an agent still infers the boundary.

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?

It explains the default behavior (everything a person can see; an agent sees its own tasks) and mentions filters to narrow down, which implies when to use it. However, no alternatives are named and there is no explicit when-not guidance versus tasks_get or other list tools.

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