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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing the non-obvious override: supplying contact_id returns ALL of that contact's tasks regardless of dates or status. That is exactly the kind of surprise an agent needs. It omits pagination/result-count behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with the main scope first and the important exception second; the trailing 'LACRM: GetTasks.' is a minor origin tag rather than padding. No redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say more about what a result set looks like and how paging works (page and max_results, default 50), since an 8-parameter list tool will often return more than one page. Safety is covered by readOnlyHint and filtering semantics are covered, but the return/pagination story is left entirely to the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema: the interaction between contact_id and start_date/end_date/completion_status (the date and status filters are ignored). That precondition is not expressible in the schema and materially affects how the parameters are combined.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List tasks') plus the scope axes that matter: date range, completion status, and user assignment. It is trivially distinguishable from the write-oriented siblings lacrm_create_task and lacrm_edit_task.

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?

It implies when the tool is appropriate (fetching tasks in a window) and hints at a special mode via contact_id, but never states when to prefer this over, say, sorting/filtering client-side or when the date-range mode is inappropriate. Usage is inferable rather than declared.

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