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

The description adds a GraphQL query template ('query tasks(client_id, completed_status, offset, per_page)') beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, revealing the underlying interface and parameter usage. It does not describe rate limits, error behavior, or response format, but for a read-only list operation, the read-only trait is already covered by annotations and the description reinforces it without contradiction.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, filters, read-only status, and the GraphQL query. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word serves a clear function. No redundant or fluff content is present.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns, which it does implicitly through 'List tasks' and the GraphQL query. It could more explicitly state that it returns a paginated list of tasks, but the operation is simple and the parameters are all documented in the schema. The read-only annotation is sufficient for safety context, so this is adequately complete for an agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already explained (e.g., 'Pagination offset', 'Filter to tasks about this client id'). The description's prose ('optionally scoped to a client or filtered by completion status') mirrors the schema without adding new meaning, and the GraphQL line simply lists parameter names without further semantic details. Thus, it does not significantly add beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'List tasks' with optional scoping and filtering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting the 'tasks' resource specifically, unlike list_appointments or list_patients, and the verb 'list' contrasts with create_task. This is a specific verb+resource combination with clear scope.

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 provides context on when to use the tool by noting optional filters ('scoped to a client or filtered by completion status') and explicitly stating 'Read-only,' which implies it is for querying, not mutating tasks. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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