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 the sort behavior and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about pagination semantics, rate limits, or response shape, so it is only modestly additive.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource, scope, and ordering, plus a short endpoint note. The 'GET /task' fragment is low-value technical noise, but overall it is tight and waste-free.

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 simple, non-destructive list tool with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually (tasks) and how they are ordered. It omits pagination flow (the schema's next_skip hint implies a cursor) and any return-format note, but no output schema exists so the gap is small.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value on one parameter: the 'sort' property only specifies 1/-1 direction, and the description supplies the missing field ('sorted by task name'). It adds nothing for skip/limit, which are already well documented.

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 (List) and resource (tasks) with scope ('in the account') and clarifying examples ('cleanings and check-ins') that map to the domain. It is distinguishable from tokeet_get_task (single fetch) and tokeet_create_task by implication, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as tokeet_get_task for a single task. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'; an agent gets no routing help.

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