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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral detail beyond that: pagination semantics, the fact that oversized results fail rather than truncate, and the meaning of the 'system' source. It does not describe ordering guarantees for plan_tasks or concurrency, keeping 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?

The definition is front-loaded with the two result categories, then tool relationships, then totals, then args, which is a sensible reading order and every section earns its place. It is longer than strictly minimal, with some redundancy between the bullet list and the prose, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates thoroughly by enumerating summary row fields (id, title, status, priority, source, tags, dates, description preview), the totals keys (standalone_total, standalone_by_source, has_more), and the optional 'preguntas' element. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does: limit (default 25, max 100, max 10 with full=True), offset (skip count for next page), and full (full objects vs summaries, plus the failure-on-oversize caveat). All three parameters gain constraints and behavior absent from the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb (list) and resource (open work) and immediately splits it into two concrete categories, standalone_tasks and plan_tasks, with the statuses each covers. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like list_tasks, get_task, and get_agent_tasks 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?

It clearly maps consumption of the output to sibling tools: plan steps via complete_agent_task, standalone tasks via update_task/complete_task, single-task detail via get_task, and pending questions via answer_question. That is strong contextual routing, though it never explicitly states when to prefer this over list_tasks or get_agent_tasks, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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