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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld=false, and the description adds real behavioral detail: ordering (open first, in-progress then pending by due date, then closed) and that related entity names are returned with their current name. It does not mention result counts or pagination behavior, keeping it below 5.

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-loads the core purpose, then matching scope, then ordering, then the colloquial use case. Each paragraph carries distinct information, though it runs slightly long for a read tool.

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 carries return-shape burden and covers ordering and entity-name resolution well. Minor gaps (pagination/limit behavior, total counts) are addressed by the schema, so this is nearly complete.

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%, so parameters (entity_id, entity_type, workspace_id, solo_abiertas, limit) are already fully documented in structured data, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format beyond what the schema already 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 (tasks of an Atlas entity) and clarifies the matching scope: counted in ANY key of related_entities and also as assignee. This distinguishes it implicitly from get_tasks/get_board_tasks by being an entity-centric view, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 a concrete usage scenario ('la forma corta de ¿qué hay de Acme? cuando no hay un tablero armado'), which tells the agent when this cross-cutting query is appropriate versus a board-based listing. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so not a 5.

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