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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the auth requirement (login), the fact that queries idempotently backfill recurring series periods, and, with no output schema supplied, explains that reachingLimit=true signals possible truncation rather than a total count. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

The scoping and mode selection are front-loaded and every clause carries information, with no filler. The semicolon-chained density makes it slightly harder to scan than a fully structured breakdown would be, but nothing is redundant.

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 4-parameter read tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers login, both filter modes, goal scoping, the archived-goal exclusion, and truncation signaling. It stops short of documenting the limit parameter (default 50, max 100) and result ordering, which leaves a minor hole for an agent tuning page size.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does: it defines both box enum values in user terms, defines done=true, and explains goalId scoping plus goalId=null for directly dispatched tasks. The limit parameter and result ordering are never explained, which is the one remaining gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (list collaboration tasks) and immediately splits the scope into the two boxes, assigned_to_me (todo for me) vs assigned_by_me (I assigned). It also explicitly excludes archived-goal tasks and points to get_collaboration_goal, so the agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening a 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?

Gives when-to-use guidance for each mode: pick the box by role, use done=true to see closed records, use goalId to narrow to one goal, and note that directly dispatched tasks carry goalId=null. It names an explicit exclusion with an alternative (archived goals -> get_collaboration_goal) and states the login prerequisite, leaving little to inference.

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