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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it reveals ordering, return summary components, filtering capability, account scoping, and the unauthenticated edge case. It does not discuss rate limits or explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'list' and the described behavior make the operation clear.

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 compact and front-loaded: core behavior first, return details and scoping second, legacy-alias guidance last. Every sentence adds information and none is wasted.

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 listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers return shape, filtering behavior, ordering, account scoping, the unauthenticated case, and the alias relationship. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether to call it or the preferred sibling.

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 only 25%, and the description adds account-scoping and filter-dimension semantics, but it does not explain the `account` or `context` objects. The filter and pagination meanings are mostly left to the schema's enum and limit descriptions, so the description only partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource+scope: 'List AdCP tasks belonging to your account, newest first.' It also explicitly calls out the legacy relationship to `list_tasks`, so an agent understands what this tool is and how it differs from the sibling.

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 explicitly names the preferred alternative `list_tasks`, states the two tools are identical, and instructs 'Prefer `list_tasks` in new code.' This is clear when-to-use guidance: use `tasks_list` only for legacy compatibility.

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