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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals important behavioral details: matching via title pattern or exact ID, subtask completions interleaved as 'Task › Subtask', per-set values with their own timestamps, and automatic chronological progression across lists. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 carry distinct, valuable information: the core aggregation behavior, a motivating example, and subtask interleaving details. The final sentence is dense but every clause earns its place; no filler or redundancy warrants a 5.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return shape as a chronological progression series with interleaved labeled subtasks. It covers the most essential behavioral expectations, though it omits exact response fields and edge-case behavior, which keeps it one step from fully complete.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters at 100% coverage, including the task matching semantics and limit range. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating that matching can be by title pattern or ID, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Query') and precise resource ('one task's submitted responses across every list in a project'), clearly distinguishing it from single-task or single-list tools like tascan_get_task and tascan_list_tasks. The cross-list aggregation and chronological-series behavior make the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides a concrete motivating scenario ('same exercise repeated across many workout lists') and frames the result as replacing N report lookups, which signals when this tool is preferable. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or state exclusions for single-list queries, so it falls short of a 5.

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