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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds minimal extra context like 'consolidated surface — same handlers as the legacy tools,' but does not disclose response shape, pagination behavior, or filtering nuances beyond what the schema already covers.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parenthetical about consolidated surface and legacy tools adds context but is slightly jargon-heavy; still, it remains efficient with no redundant 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?

The description plus the fully covered input schema and safety annotations provide enough context to invoke the tool correctly. A gap is the lack of an output schema or mention of return format, but the read-only nature and rich parameter descriptions keep this adequate for a complex 19-parameter tool.

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%, with every parameter described in the input schema. The description only restates the action enum ('tasks | categories'), which is already documented in the schema, adding no new semantic value for the remaining 18 parameters.

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 reads tasks and task categories, with a specific action parameter distinguishing the two operations. This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like task_write and delete_task.

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 implies usage for read-only operations via the verb 'Read', but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like task_write or delete_task. The 'consolidated surface' note hints at replacing legacy read tools but provides no concrete when/when-not guidance.

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