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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description explains WHY the operation is not read-only: the query idempotently backfills periodic cycle instances. It also discloses the login requirement and the meaning of reachingLimit=true as possible truncation rather than a total count — real behavioral context beyond the 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?

Front-loads the login prerequisite and then packs each parameter plus the alternative-tool note into semicolon-delimited clauses — dense and mostly waste-free, though the run-on semicolon style makes it slightly harder to scan than short discrete sentences.

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 and 0% parameter-description coverage, the description carries the full load, and it does: auth, both filter dimensions, goal scoping, archived-goal exclusion, the side-effect of cycle backfill, and the truncation flag. Only the limit/count semantics are left implicit.

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 0%, but the description compensates for three of four parameters: box values are glossed (待我做 / 我派给他人), done=true means settled records, goalId narrows to a goal and is null for directly dispatched tasks. Only limit is left entirely to the schema's numeric bounds.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (collaboration tasks) and immediately scopes it by the two boxes assigned_to_me / assigned_by_me, which are also the schema's distinguishing enum. It explicitly separates itself from get_collaboration_goal for archived-goal tasks, so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use for box, done, and goalId, names the when-not case (archived goals are excluded from this list), and routes the agent to the alternative tool (get_collaboration_goal) for that case. Nothing is left to inference.

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