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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that completed tasks are excluded by default and that includeCompleted changes this behavior. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or limit semantics, but the main filtering behavior is transparently described.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately adds the important filtering behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more operational context. It does not mention how results are ordered, whether pagination applies, what fields are returned, or how to find listId. The core behavior is covered, but an agent would need to infer several calling details.

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?

The description adds meaning for includeCompleted by explaining its default effect, and 'one list' loosely implies the role of listId. However, limit is given no semantic explanation, and listId is not explicitly tied to list_google_task_lists output. Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'List the tasks in one list.' It also clarifies scope by saying 'one list,' which distinguishes it from list_google_task_lists and get_google_task even without naming them. The completion filter adds helpful specificity to the purpose.

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 the tool is for retrieving outstanding tasks in a specific list, especially with the phrase 'what comes back is what is still outstanding.' However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like list_google_task_lists or how to obtain a valid listId, so usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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