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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the list is scoped to the caller's tasks, ordering is open-first, and filtering by state is optional. This is sufficient for a simple read-only listing tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action, scope, default ordering, and optional filter concisely.

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 a simple read-only list tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and safe annotations, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is that no output schema exists and the return shape is not described, but the title and description make the expected output obvious enough.

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 the input schema already documents limit, offset, and status. The description only adds the generic notion of 'filtered by state', which loosely maps to the status parameter but without additional detail. This matches the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the caller's tasks' and adds meaningful behavior with 'open ones first; optionally filtered by state'. It clearly identifies this as a read/browse operation and distinguishes it from sibling task mutation tools like tasks_create, tasks_update, and tasks_delete.

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 description implies this is the right tool when someone wants to browse their own tasks, and the optional status filter is mentioned. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over tasks_next or whether tasks_next is intended for getting a single next task. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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