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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the required scope (tasks.read), which is real value beyond annotations, and mentions paging. It says nothing about the paging cursor semantics or that embed fields may silently return null without extra scopes — though the schema covers those.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then the permission requirement. Nothing is repeated and every clause adds something the schema or annotations do not.

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 six optional, fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly, but it omits the one context an agent actually needs: how this differs from sellsy_search_tasks in the same namespace. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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%, including detailed cursor semantics for offset and the 1-100/default-25 limit, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only echoes 'with paging' and adds no parameter guidance beyond that. 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 tasks') plus a scope note ('with paging'), so the agent knows this is a paginated enumeration of tasks. It does not contrast itself with the sibling sellsy_search_tasks, which is the nearest competing read operation, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 prerequisite 'Needs tasks.read' is genuinely useful context for invocation (auth scope). However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus sellsy_search_tasks or sellsy_list_task_labels, and no note about filtering capability or lack thereof. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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