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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety bar is low, yet the description adds real behavior: shared-sphere tasks are included and carry specific extra fields (sphere, owner, my_role, locked, can_tick), and locked tasks are constrained to done/not-done via update_task. It does not mention ordering, pagination or response size for the 62-day case.

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 scope and defaults before the field-level and locked-task detail. The parenthetical field list is dense but each element carries actionable meaning; nothing is redundant filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-shape burden, and it partially does by describing the 'shared' payload and 'ticked' semantics for owners/responsible people. The base task fields and pagination behavior are left to inference from sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100% so both parameters are already documented with format and pattern, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: an omitted date defaults to today and the pair of dates implies a maximum span of 62 days.

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 resource (tasks) and scope (one day, or a range up to 62 days via date/to_date), which is clear. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_today, which plausibly overlaps for the single-day case, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

Gives concrete operating guidance: omit date for today, the range cap of 62 days, and the rule that locked tasks may only be marked done via update_task and never renamed, moved, retimed or deleted. It stops short of naming alternatives such as get_today or list_goals for other retrieval needs.

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