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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the lower bar applies. The description still adds real context: it discloses the return semantic (counts grouped by status), the full status-code legend, and the underlying POST endpoint. Minor gap is no mention of pagination/response shape.

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?

Front-loads the purpose (counts per status), then the decoding legend, then the endpoint. The long code list is dense but earns its place by filling the schema gap; no filler sentences.

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 aggregation tool with no output schema, it conveys that the result is per-status counts and which filters apply. Without an output schema the exact response shape remains slightly underspecified, but it's adequate to call correctly.

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%, but the schema's job_status only says "e.g. [2, 3]" without explaining codes. The description's status legend (0 assigned ... 10 deleted) fills that genuine gap, adding value beyond the schema rather than repeating it.

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: returns task COUNTS per status, with optional filtering. This is clearly an aggregation tool, distinct in intent from list_tasks/get_tasks which return task records. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, keeping it from a 5.

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?

"optionally for one task type, one team and a date range" implies the filtering scenarios it serves, but it never states when to prefer this over tookan_list_tasks or tookan_get_tasks, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied, not explicit.

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