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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description correctly adds only the permission requirement 'Needs tasks.read', which is real context not in the structured fields. It says nothing about result size, paging behavior, or whether empty results are error vs empty list — though paging is partly described in 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?

Two sentences, no filler; the capability statement comes first and the permission requirement second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 a read-only 7-parameter search with a nested filters object and no output schema, the definition covers permission and filter scope but leaves the result shape (what a task record contains, what pagination.offset looks like) unaddressed and gives no disambiguation against list_tasks. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%: the filters object already enumerates statuses, owners, assigned_staffs, labels, due_date ranges, etc., and offset/limit/embed/field are fully documented there. The description's filter list merely restates a subset of the filters schema. 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 (search) and resource (tasks) plus the filterable dimensions, so the agent knows it's a filtered task query. It does not distinguish itself from the co-existing sellsy_list_tasks or the generic sellsy_search, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the three is right.

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 enumerated filter axes imply when the tool is useful (targeted task lookup by status/owner/date), and 'Needs tasks.read' flags a prerequisite. But there is no explicit when-not, and no pointer to sellsy_list_tasks for unfiltered listing or sellsy_get_task for single retrieval.

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