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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, yet the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the precedence chain (task → list → project → site → purpose default → org default → TaScan's own) and the fact that resolution can occur with no item when resolve is set. 'Read tier' is unexplained, which costs a little.

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?

Almost no wasted content, but the entire description is a single tangled sentence with nested parentheticals, so the list-vs-resolve distinction is not front-loaded. Information density is high while parseability is low.

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 six optional parameters and no output schema, the description should also convey what a 'look' contains and what a resolve result looks like. It covers inputs and precedence thoroughly but says nothing about return shape, and leaves 'Read tier' opaque.

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 17% (just the resolve flag), so the description carries the burden and mostly does: it names all four ID parameters and enumerates the purpose values (share, placard, asset, receipt, work_order) that are absent from the schema. It still doesn't say what a list_id or site_id refers to in domain terms.

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 names both operations concretely: listing saved QR styles at GET /qr-styles and resolving the applicable style at GET /qr-styles/resolve. The two modes are distinguishable, but the run-on sentence and the unexplained phrase 'Read tier' keep it from being crisply stated.

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 implies the selection rule well – call with no IDs to list, call with task_id/list_id/project_id/site_id to resolve – and gives the fallback chain. But it never names or excludes sibling tools such as tascan_apply_qr_style, tascan_save_qr_style, or tascan_generate_qr, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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