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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: bounded result sets, most-recent-first ordering, cursor serialization requirements, snapshot fencing semantics, and the caveat that task status can change mid-listing. This is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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 the core purpose, then structured REQUIRED/optional params and a concrete EXAMPLE call. Dense but every sentence (ordering, cursor discipline, snapshot caveat) earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return shape (bounded items, count, complete, meta.has_more, next_cursor) and explains how to advance pagination. All parameters, return fields, and the follow-up tool handoff are covered, so an agent can call and consume this correctly.

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 largely succeeds: it enumerates the status enum values, gives ranges and defaults for days (1..365, 7) and limit (1..50, 20), and explains that cursor is opaque and bound to tenant/tool/filters. Only connection_context is left undocumented, which is a minor gap for an internal auth-context field.

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 and resource ('List recent async task summaries for the current user') with scope qualifiers ('recent', 'current user'). It also routes to a sibling (tasks_get_status) for follow-up. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from tasks_latest or tasks_list_create_history, which is the only gap keeping it from a 5.

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 strong operational guidance: continue cursors serially with unchanged filters until complete=true 'before claiming absence', and notes snapshot_at fences new tasks while status can still change. It lacks an explicit statement of when to choose this over sibling list tools like tasks_latest or tasks_list_create_history.

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