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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds modest value by disclosing that each row includes completion_count, which hints at return shape, but it doesn't disclose pagination, result limits, or default inclusion of inactive workers. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with zero waste: the first front-loads the verb/resource and lists the filter dimensions, and the second discloses the notable output field. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information appears first.

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 read-only, idempotent listing tool with 5 optional parameters fully documented in the schema, the description is nearly complete: purpose, filter capabilities, and one key output signal are covered. The only gap is the absence of an output schema and no mention of result ordering or pagination, which is a minor omission given the annotations already carry the safety profile.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely mirrors the schema by mentioning name/email/phone substring, contact-info presence, and last-activity date, but it adds no syntax, format, or semantics beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workers (taskees)') and immediately differentiates the tool from sibling list tools like tascan_list_agents and tascan_list_assets by naming the worker resource and its key output field (completion_count). An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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 context by enumerating supported filters, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as tascan_get_worker, tascan_find_duplicate_workers, or tascan_list_tasks. The auditing-after-merge guidance lives only in the schema's include_inactive parameter description, not in the tool description itself, so usage guidance is present but implied rather than explicit.

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