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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks the operation as safe. The description adds useful behavioral context: pagination behavior, filter availability, and the REST endpoint (GET /tasks). It does not disclose rate limits or response shape, but for a read-only list endpoint the added context is meaningful.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose, define the resource, list optional filters, note pagination, and provide the REST endpoint. Every sentence adds valuable information with zero 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 straightforward read-only list tool with well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: what is listed, filter options, pagination, and the endpoint. Sibling differentiation is implicitly handled by the unique resource type.

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%, with each of the four parameters fully documented. The description mentions 'active status' and 'updated-since' which map to is_active and updated_since, but only restates what the schema already provides. It adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the existing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('List tasks'), defines what tasks are ('billable/non-billable work categories'), and includes the API endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools since no other task-listing tool exists among siblings.

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 description implies usage for listing task categories and clarifies optional filters (active status or updated-since). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but with no competing task-list sibling, the context is clear and self-sufficient.

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