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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the useful dual-mode detail that a single id returns one task in full rather than a list, but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or pagination beyond what the 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the primary listing behavior and filters front-loaded before the example questions. Dense but appropriately sized for a five-parameter tool with dual behavior.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations carry the safety story. It covers both the list and single-task modes plus the filter dimensions, leaving only minor gaps such as default/sorting behavior, which the schema's limit description partially addresses.

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 the schema already explains id, limit, status, priority and project_id, including the enum values and the "other arguments are then ignored" behavior for id. The description only restates the filterable dimensions (status, priority, project) at a high level, adding essentially nothing beyond the schema — 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 names a specific verb and resource ("Lists company tasks") and additionally discloses a second mode — reading one task in full by id — that an agent might not infer from the name alone. The task resource is clearly distinct from the sibling list_* tools (list_projects, list_staff, etc.), so no sibling is easily confused with it, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with an alternative.

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 supplies concrete usage context by mapping example questions ("what is pending?", "what is urgent?", "what is assigned to this project?") onto the status, priority and project filters, which helps an agent recognize the right invocation. It stops short of stating when to avoid this tool or which sibling to prefer for other task-related needs.

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