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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's pagination bounds (1-50, default 10) merely restate the schema's 'size' description, so it adds little behavioral context beyond structured fields, though nothing is contradicted.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded before the pagination detail. Minor redundancy with the schema's size description keeps it from a 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 a simple read-only, closed-world list tool with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the definition is nearly complete. The only gap is silent on return shape (item list plus pagination metadata), which matters slightly since no output schema exists.

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% – all three parameters (page, size, account_code) are documented in the schema, including defaults and the 1-50 range. The description repeats the size range only, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Paginated list of doable pieces (Tasks, Stories, Recurents) for an account' names the operation and clarifies the domain vocabulary of 'pieces'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling SearchPiecesTool or GetPieceTool, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 only implied: it lists pieces for an account, paginated. There is no statement of when to prefer this over SearchPiecesTool, nor any exclusion or prerequisite beyond the required account_code. Adequate but with a clear routing gap given a near-identical sibling exists.

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