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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds the REST mapping (GET /tasks) and lists filter dimensions, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps (take max 50), or ordering defaults, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotation.

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 compact sentences: the capability and filter list come first, the endpoint reference last. No filler, 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?

For a 12-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers filtering but not paging (skip/take limits) or how results are ordered/returned. It is adequate but leaves the agent to mine the schema for paging behavior.

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. The description echoes six filter dimensions (status, due-date range, assignee, constituent, channel, purpose) that largely duplicate existing schema descriptions and omits paging/ordering params, adding no new semantics. 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('List tasks (follow-ups)') and enumerates the filterable dimensions, so an agent immediately knows this is a read/list operation over tasks. It is clearly distinct from the sibling bloomerang_create_task, but it never names or differentiates itself from other list tools, which caps it at 4.

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 text implies when to use it (retrieving tasks, optionally narrowed by status, dates, assignee, constituent, channel or purpose) but gives no explicit when-not conditions or alternative tools. Usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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