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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only the backing endpoint (GET /v1/tasks) and the due enum values; it says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or rate limits, so it adds limited behavioral context beyond the 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?

Three compact fragments, front-loaded with the resource and followed by filter scope and endpoint. No padding, though the trailing endpoint reference is of marginal use to an agent.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and filter scope adequately. With no output schema, return shape is undocumented anywhere, and pagination (the schema's `next` hint for deep paging) is never surfaced, leaving a small gap.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description's restatement of filter categories and the due enum values (today|overdue|upcoming) duplicates what the schema already provides rather than adding syntax or format detail.

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+resource (list tasks) and clarifies scope by naming what counts as a task (follow-ups, calls, showings), which helps separate it from siblings like fub_list_calls and fub_list_appointments. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 enumerates the available filter dimensions (person, assignee, type, completion, due window), which implies how to narrow a query, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives such as fub_list_calls or fub_search_people. Usage is inferable but unstated.

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