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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral detail on top: the hard 31-day date-window restriction, that each call returns exactly one page of a fixed page size, and the underlying endpoint. It omits return shape (total count, whether page size is discoverable), which keeps it from a 5.

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-loaded with purpose and the date-window constraint, then filters, then status legend, then endpoint — a sensible ordering. The status-code list is duplicated from the schema's job_status description, which is the one clearly redundant clause.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return semantics — it discloses the page-per-call model and pagination entry point, which is the critical piece. It still leaves unanswered what a returned page contains and whether the caller can tell it has reached the last page.

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 every parameter already carries its own documentation, including the status-code legend and job_type meanings. The description largely restates the status codes verbatim from the schema and adds no new semantics such as default-vs-explicit behavior or how multiple filters combine (AND vs OR). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List tasks', clarified as Tookan 'jobs'), scopes it to one task type within a task-date range, and gives the endpoint (POST /v2/get_all_tasks). It stops short of naming the nearest sibling (tookan_get_tasks / tookan_get_tasks_by_order_id), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Useful operating context is given: at most a 31-day window that must fall within the last 31 days, and pagination is one Tookan page per call. However, it never says when to prefer this over tookan_get_tasks, tookan_get_tasks_by_order_id, or tookan_get_task_stats, even though it advertises order-id and job-id filtering that overlaps those siblings.

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