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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so thoroughly by explaining bounded pagination, ordering, cursor opacity and binding, the snapshot_at fence, and the fact that task status can still change after listing.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives result shape, continuation rules, parameters, and an example in compact form. Every sentence carries essential operational information without 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description explains return fields, ordering, pagination semantics, constraints, and a concrete invocation example. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret its 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%, and the description fully compensates. It defines the status subset and comma-separated format, days and limit ranges, cursor behavior, and defaults, adding meaning well beyond the bare input 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 action and resource: 'List recent async task summaries for the current user.' It is clear and informative, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as tasks_latest or tasks_list_create_history, so it misses the full 'differentiates from siblings' bar.

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?

Usage guidance is strong: it describes cursor continuation ('Continue cursors serially... until complete=true'), filtering options, and the downstream step ('Use returned task_ref with tasks_get_status'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool instead of a sibling list tool, so the exclusion guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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