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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with that (listing is read-only). However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema, such as pagination behavior, sorting, or what the history records include. It does not contradict annotations, but it offers no extra transparency.

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 description is extremely brief ('List recent create/copy history'), which is concise but under-specified for a tool with five parameters and a non-trivial operation. It is not overly verbose, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 0% schema coverage, 5 parameters, and no behavioral notes, the description is woefully incomplete. Even though an output schema exists, the agent lacks context on how to use parameters, what 'history' contains, or how to interpret the response. The description does not provide enough for correct invocation.

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% and the description provides no explanation of the five parameters (days, limit, cursor, search, status). Since the schema itself lacks descriptions, the tool description carries the full burden, and it fails to clarify parameter purpose, formats, or interactions.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('create/copy history'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like tasks_list (general list) and tasks_get_create_detail (detail of a specific create). It is not a tautology and gives a basic sense of what the tool does, though it lacks specificity about what 'history' entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or contrasts with similar tools such as tasks_list or tasks_get_create_detail. An agent must infer usage from the name and context.

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