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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering ('Newest first as Street orders them'), pagination guidance, and the endpoint, but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or other behavioral constraints.

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?

The description is two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and result content, followed by ordering and pagination guidance. Every clause carries useful information and there is no filler.

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?

Given 11 optional parameters with full schema coverage, the schema already explains filters, date ranges, trashed behavior, and inclusion options. The description supplies result shape, ordering, pagination guidance, and endpoint, which is sufficient; the only minor gap is that it does not summarize the available filters, but those are well documented in the schema.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only mentions page and page_size, adding no meaningful semantics beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions; this matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List tasks') and clarifies that tasks are to-dos with title, due date, assignee, and related record. It also states ordering and the underlying endpoint, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as street_list_task_types or street_create_task.

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?

It explains pagination mechanics ('page with page and page_size') and ordering, which is useful context. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or preconditions.

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