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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Read-only' largely repeats structured data. The GraphQL signature ('query tasks(client_id, completed_status, offset, per_page)') does add useful implementation insight, but nothing is said about default ordering, result caps, or total counts for a list endpoint.

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 short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the API signature trailing. No wasted prose; the only questionable element is whether the GraphQL line earns its place for an agent that already sees the schema.

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 no output schema, the description covers filtering and pagination but omits anything about what a returned task looks like or how results are ordered. Combined with minimal annotations, this leaves small gaps an agent might want filled.

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 all four parameters are already documented with defaults and constraints in the schema. The description only restates the parameter names inside the GraphQL signature and adds no format or value semantics 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 specific verb and resource ('List tasks') plus the two optional scoping dimensions (client, completion status). It clearly differentiates itself from unrelated siblings like healthie_list_patients or healthie_list_appointments, though it never explicitly points at healthie_create_task as the mutation counterpart.

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 phrase 'optionally scoped to a client or filtered by completion status' implies when each filter applies, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative tool for related needs (e.g. fetching a single task or creating one).

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