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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: pagination defaults (25, max 100), a stricter cap under full=True, the fact that oversized results fail rather than truncate, and the default open-task scoping. It does not spell out what a 'summary' row contains beyond the id.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the args block is dense and skimmable, with each entry earning its place. It is longer than strictly necessary but the extra length is functional parameter documentation rather than filler.

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 six-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotation-level detail, the description covers filtering, pagination, ordering, output granularity, and the failure mode of full=True. The only gap is the exact composition of a summary row, which the agent must infer.

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 carries the full burden and does: every one of the six params gets meaning, the status enum values are enumerated, source enum values are enumerated with an explanation of 'system', and the interaction between status and include_done is made explicit. This is materially more than the bare schema provides.

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 and immediately scopes it: 'standalone tasks (work items not tied to a goal plan)', which separates it from goal-plan tasks and agent-task siblings. It also names ordering ('highest priority first'), output shape ('summarized and paginated') and the default filter, so an agent knows exactly what comes back.

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 clear operating context: default returns only open statuses, status overrides include_done, and 'full' should only be used for small pages. It also points to the follow-up tools (get_task, update_task, complete_task) that consume the returned ids. It stops short of explicitly routing between this tool and named siblings like get_agent_tasks or get_pending_work.

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