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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it is a GET on /people/{personId}/tasks; it does not mention pagination flow, ordering, or result shape, so added behavioral value is modest.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the task kinds and tab options, followed by the endpoint path. No filler, though the raw path 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 annotation coverage and a schema that handles paging, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. It stops short of describing ordering or what a task entry contains, which no output schema covers.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents tab, page and limit including the DUE default. The description repeats the tab values without adding selection meaning, and says nothing about person_id beyond the endpoint template. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (tasks) plus the concrete task kinds it covers (forms, reviews, check-ins, onboarding steps) and the endpoint, which distinguishes it from siblings like intellihr_list_person_documents or intellihr_list_person_skills. It never explicitly contrasts with those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 tab enumeration with the DUE default implies how to narrow the query, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related person-list tools or when a given tab applies. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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