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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description's 'GET /v1/tasks' is consistent with that safe-read profile, so no contradiction. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint, e.g. pagination behavior, default page size, or result ordering.

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 short, front-loaded fragments with no filler; the resource and filters come first. The telegraphic style ('FUB: GET /v1/tasks') is efficient but borders on terse.

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 an 11-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main filter categories but omits paging semantics (limit/offset/next, FUB default 10) and return shape. With no output schema and no annotation detail, this leaves gaps an agent must resolve from the schema alone.

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 in the schema, making 3 the correct baseline. The description restates the 'due' enum and filter categories but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 clear verb+resource ('Tasks') and enumerates the filterable dimensions, so an agent knows this lists task records. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as fub_list_calls, fub_list_appointments, or fub_list_events, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 ('by person, assignee, type, completion, or due window') implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like fub_list_appointments for scheduled events. Usage must be inferred.

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