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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are returned in priority order, the payload contains the action, the rationale and the priority, and the status filter defaults to 'todo'. Remaining gaps (result count limits, pagination) are minor for a read-only listing.

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, front-loaded with the when-to-use trigger followed by what is returned and the filter options. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 correctly compensates by describing the returned fields and their ordering, and it covers the filter default. Only edge details such as result volume or multi-brand behavior at the response level are unaddressed.

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 50%: 'brand' is documented in the schema (including fallback and list_brands reference), but 'status' has only an enum with no prose. The description fills that gap by enumerating the four values and, importantly, disclosing that 'todo' is the default — information the schema does not convey.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Returns CueScout's To-dos for the brand') and adds meaningful scope ('in priority order'). It is clearly a list operation, distinguishable in practice from the singular get_todo sibling, though it never names that sibling or states the distinction explicitly.

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 gives a concrete triggering scenario: 'Use this when someone asks what they should do next to show up in AI answers.' It also states the default status filter. It does not, however, mention when to prefer get_todo or another sibling instead.

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