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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond that: the tool is unavailable to sb_* token types, an auth-scope limitation an agent could not otherwise anticipate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope (completed tasks, authenticated user) comes first and the availability caveat second.

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?

Annotations cover safety and the schema covers both parameters, so the essentials are present. But there is no output schema and the description says nothing about the return shape (pagination, fields per task) or whether it overlaps with get_tasks, leaving minor gaps for a list tool of this kind.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both limit (max 200, default 50) and workspace_id (UUID or name, omit for all workspaces). The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Obtiene') and a specific resource subset ('las tasks completadas del usuario autenticado'), which distinguishes it from the generic get_tasks and get_declared_tasks siblings. It is clear what the tool returns, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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?

The parenthetical restriction '(no disponible para tokens sb_*)' is a real usage constraint that tells the agent when the call will fail. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_tasks / get_declared_tasks, or whether filtering by workspace is required, so selection among siblings is left to inference.

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