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 covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the default sort ('soonest due first'), but says nothing about result volume, truncation, or whether cancelled/done tasks are included by default.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; scope and ordering both land before the reader needs anything else.

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 three-parameter, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the one thing structured fields can't: the default ordering. Only the default status filter behavior is left unstated.

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 limit, status and due_before are fully documented in the schema. The description's only implicit tie to parameters is the due-date ordering, which adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('List') plus resource ('follow-up tasks'), and scopes it ('for this account') while stating the sort order. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from create_task/update_task/delete_task siblings, but the read semantics are unmistakable.

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?

'For this account' implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. filtering by status</>, or reaching for get/list siblings), and no prerequisites stated.

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