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

The readOnlyHint already establishes that this is a safe read. The description adds useful behavioral context: these are team/AI follow-ups, open items should be surfaced proactively, completion is handled through save_todo, and IDs follow a specific format. It does not cover return structure or pagination, but with annotations present the disclosure burden is lower.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every clause contributes useful routing information. The usage sentence is dense and somewhat run-on, but there is little wasted text.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and readOnlyHint, the description supplies the purpose, usage triggers, sibling handoff for completion, and ID format. Nothing an agent needs in order to select and invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the property, search, and status parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the open-items focus and gives an ID format example, but it does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing the team's to-do list for a property, including what these items are ('follow-ups the team or the AI noted down'). It clearly distinguishes this read operation from mutations handled by save_todo.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use triggers: start of an analysis, before a first write, when context shows an overdue item, and when the user asks what to work on. It also names the relevant sibling tool, save_todo, for ticking off completed items.

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