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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it is index-backed (idx_due) rather than a KV scan and is therefore cheap at scale, and it discloses the compact return shape {memoryId, taskStatus, dueDate, project} — useful since there is no output schema. Ordering and pagination behavior are not stated.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it lists, why it is cheap, and what it returns plus where to go for more. The scope and the sibling pointer are front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. It stops short of describing result ordering or default/limit behavior, which an agent listing tasks might reasonably want.

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 five parameters (limit, status, project, dueAfter, dueBefore) are already documented, including the enum and ISO 8601 formats. The description only restates the filter axes at a high level ('project/status/due window') and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (list task memories) plus its filtering dimensions (project/status/due window) and explicitly names the sibling that returns full bodies (muninn_memory_get). An agent can distinguish this from muninn_memory_list and muninn_memory_get without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule: use this for compact task rows, use muninn_memory_get for the full task body. It does not address the other near-neighbours (muninn_memory_list, muninn_memory_query, muninn_memory_search), so the when-not-to-use side is only partially covered.

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