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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the API mapping ("Teamleader: tasks.list") and no extra behavioral context like result ordering or pagination behavior, which is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and filters following; no wasted prose. The trailing "Teamleader: tasks.list" is minimally useful API identification but borderline 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?

For a 12-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering but says nothing about return shape, pagination behavior, or default page size beyond what the schema hints. Adequate to invoke, but not complete.

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 coverage is 75% with good per-parameter descriptions, so the schema does most of the work. The description names several filters (user, completed, scheduled, due range, term, customer) that map onto real parameters but omits page/page_size/sort semantics, adding only modest value.

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+resource ("List tasks (to-dos)") and enumerates the filter capabilities, so an agent knows this is a query tool, not the mutating teamleader_create_task sibling. It stops short of naming any alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 listing of filters implies when the tool is applicable (e.g., 'filter by assigned user, completed, scheduled...'), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as retrieving a single task or listing users.

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