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

Annotations already establish a safe read (readOnlyHint=true), but the description adds substantial domain behavior beyond them: private tasks are excluded unless incluir_privadas is set, urgency is recomputed each call while the stored value ages (returned separately as urgency_guardada), and omitting workspace_id collapses all workspaces into one call. These are exactly the kind of runtime traits an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

It is long, but it is front-loaded with the core list behavior and then partitioned into clearly labeled blocks (ESTADOS, URGENCIA, VENCIMIENTO, RESPONSABLE, PRIVADAS, TODOS LOS WORKSPACES), so nothing reads as padding. Some of the VENCIMIENTO/RESPONSABLE prose is more than what a filter-selection task strictly needs, keeping it just short of 5.

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?

For an 11-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what is missing: status/backlog semantics, urgency derivation, the three distinct notions of person, privacy behavior, and cross-workspace behavior. It even names returned fields (wip_since, urgency_guardada, assignee_name, related_entities.people), so an agent knows enough to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema already documents each parameter including enums. The description nevertheless adds meaning the schema does not: it explains that urgency is derived from due_date re-evaluated against today rather than stored, that backlog coexists with pending rather than replacing it, and that due_date/start_date/end_date can disagree. That raises it above baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Lista las tareas ABIERTAS del workspace: pendientes y en curso'. It immediately delimits what is included (pending/wip) and what is not, so an agent can tell it apart from get_completed_tasks, get_working_log and get_board_tasks without opening any schema.

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 closing paragraph names three alternatives and the condition that selects each ('Para el detalle largo de una: get_task_detail. Para las cerradas: get_working_log. Para lo que entra en un tablero: get_board_tasks'). It also gives a strong negative instruction: don't call it once per workspace nor once per filter if an unfiltered call covers it.

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