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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the underlying endpoint mapping (Bloomerang: GET /tasks), which reinforces read-only behavior, but discloses nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or default ordering. Modest added value beyond 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?

Two tightly written sentences, filter dimensions front-loaded, with the API mapping tacked on last. No wasted words and no redundancy.

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?

Description summarizes filterable fields but omits the ordering (order_by/order_direction) and pagination (skip/take) capabilities present in the schema. With no output schema, return shape is unaddressed, though that is not required. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 12-parameter tool.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema (skip, take, dates, ids). The description restates the filter dimensions (status, due-date range, assignee, constituent, channel, purpose) without adding format or default details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (tasks), clarifies the resource as follow-ups, and enumerates the dimensions the listing can be filtered by. An agent can distinguish it from create_task and from sibling list tools like list_interactions without opening the 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?

The filter list implies the retrieval use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or when-not statement, and the sibling create_task is never named as the alternative for creating a task. Usage is left to inference from the description.

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