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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the required scope (TASKS_READ), the Relay connection shape, and the cursor-based pagination contract. It stops short of describing ordering or what happens when filters combine, but it clears the lower bar set by annotations.

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, zero filler, and the scoping statement is front-loaded ahead of filtering and pagination mechanics. Each sentence carries independent information.

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 definition covers scope, filters, pagination, and auth. The one real gap is return shape, but the mention of a 'Relay connection' gives the agent enough to expect edges/nodes/pageInfo.

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 every parameter (including the after cursor, page-size bounds, and status enum) is already documented in the schema. The description only paraphrases the filter set at a high level and adds no syntax or default details beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the viewer's tasks') and names the underlying GraphQL field (viewer.tasks), which lets an agent distinguish it from create_task and update_task without opening any schema. The explicit 'viewer's' scope also prevents confusion with team-wide listing tools.

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 enumerates the available filters and explains pagination, which implies the usage context, but it never says when to prefer this tool over the generic parabol_query / parabol_graphql siblings that could also fetch tasks. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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