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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: pagination via `first` + `after` DateTime cursor, the Relay connection shape, and the required TASKS_READ permission. This goes beyond what annotations reveal without contradicting them.

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 sentences, each earning its place: scope, filter options, pagination, underlying query, and permission. Text is compact and front-loaded with the action and resource. Not maximally structured, but well within acceptable limits.

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 does a good job conveying the output context via 'Relay connection' and the underlying GraphQL query. It covers most filter dimensions and pagination, though it omits the `includeUnassigned` option and any detail about returned task fields. Minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds helpful context by grouping the filter semantics and clarifying the pagination relationship between `first` and `after`, but it doesn't substantially extend what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List') and a clearly bounded resource ('the viewer's tasks (Relay connection)'), distinguishing it from other list tools by emphasizing viewer scope. It lacks an explicit named alternative, so it doesn't fully earn the top score.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the viewer's tasks are needed, with optional filters and pagination. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the viewer-specific framing is enough to orient an agent.

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