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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description clears it by disclosing ordering (most urgent first), the returned fields (what, urgency, location, fixing tool), and the 'key'/'closable' semantics tied to close_todo. The 'closable' contract is genuinely useful context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core scope front-loaded and the field/closability detail following. Every clause earns its place and there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description sensibly enumerates the return fields and their meaning, and covers ordering and closability. It is close to complete for a single-parameter read tool, missing only a note on whether results can be empty or filtered.

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 only parameter (artist) is fully documented in the schema with connection-type conditions. The description adds nothing about parameters, so 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?

States a specific resource (open to-dos across the artist's pages) and scope, and implies the list verb. It differentiates somewhat from list_release_todos by scoping to 'their pages' rather than a release, though it never names that 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?

Usage is implied by the content (read the artist's actionable to-dos) and it cross-references close_todo via the 'closable' field, giving a hint of the downstream action. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it stays at minimum-viable.

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