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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for adding the required-filter rule and the 25-record page cap. It still omits how paging/next_offset behaves on return, but the essentials beyond annotations are present.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: filters first, constraint second, endpoint last. The trailing 'GET /tasks.' is slightly fragmentary but costs nothing.

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 still conveys the page cap and required-filter behavior, and the offset field documents next_offset paging. A brief note on return shape would complete it, but nothing critical is missing.

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 70%, and the description lists the filter dimensions that map to the parameters, plus the non-obvious rule that at least one filter is mandatory. It does not explain limit/offset semantics, which the schema already documents.

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 the resource (tasks) and enumerates the exact filter dimensions (patient, status, owner, priority, tag, due date, archive state), which distinguishes it cleanly from akutehealth_get_task. The GET /tasks endpoint reference reinforces a list-style read.

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 a concrete prerequisite: 'at least one filter except archived is required', telling the agent this is not a browse-all endpoint. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the filter constraint clearly frames when to use this vs. a single-task lookup.

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