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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavior: contact_id silently overrides the date range and status filter. It stops short of disclosing pagination/result-cap behavior, which is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loading the default scope and then the exception, with no redundancy. The trailing 'LACRM: GetTasks.' API mapping is minor filler but harmless.

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 an 8-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the parameters whose interaction is subtle (contact_id vs. dates/status) while the schema handles pagination, sorting, and result caps verbatim. Return shape is unspecified, but that is a minor gap for a list endpoint.

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 real semantics beyond the schema wording by clarifying that contact_id bypasses start_date/end_date/completion_status — something the schema's 'Only tasks attached to this contact' does not convey.

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 scoping axes (due date range, completion status, assigned users). It is clearly distinguishable from the create/edit task siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear conditional rule for the contact_id override ('ALL of that contact's tasks are returned regardless of dates or status'), which is exactly the kind of usage guidance an agent needs. It does not, however, name an alternative sibling or say when to prefer a different listing tool.

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