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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuine behavior: results are ordered oldest-first, span all boards, and exclude completed or undated tasks. The phrase "in the task_list table" also hints at the output shape, which no annotation or output schema provides.

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 short sentences with zero padding: scope first, the as_of semantics second, then the exclusion rule. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 simple read-only filtered list with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. Only the returned fields are unspecified, which is minor since there is no output schema and the table reference gives a pointer.

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 both as_of and limit are already documented, including formats and the default row count. The description's "as_of measures against a day you name" only restates that, adding no syntax or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb and resource: "List every task whose due day is already past, across all boards, oldest first." Scope and ordering are stated up front, which separates it from the generic task_list sibling in practice, though the description never names that alternative 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?

Implicit usage is clear from the filter definition, and exclusion rules (finished tasks and tasks with no due date never count) set a real boundary. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over task_list, task_search, or weekly_review, so the agent must infer the choice.

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