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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: ordering (newest first), status coverage, inclusion of tasks created on kling.ai, and that results are returned inline. Auth nuance is left to the 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?

Two tight sentences with the core scope front-loaded and pagination second; the trailing 'GET /tasks' endpoint note is terse. No filler sentences.

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 should carry return-shape information; 'with their results' is thin but adequate given the enumerations. For a read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and fully documented params, only the result structure is left somewhat vague.

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, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: createdBefore is the pagination cursor set to the last task's createTime. That turns an opaque timestamp filter into an actionable cursor pattern, which is above-baseline value.

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 and resource ('An account's recent Kling tasks, newest first') and enumerates the statuses covered (running, failed, finished), which implicitly contrasts with kling_list_running. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the split from kling_list_running and kling_get_task.

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?

Offers concrete operational guidance for pagination ('Page with createdBefore = the last task's createTime'), which is genuinely useful. It does not, however, say when to choose this over kling_list_running or kling_get_task, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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