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

Annotations already establish that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those. The added 'visible to the current principal' scoping is useful, but pagination and response behavior are not disclosed.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It communicates the core purpose efficiently.

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 no-argument call, the description plus read-only annotations are probably sufficient. However, the lack of pagination or return-value guidance makes it incomplete for paged usage, which is a common need for a list tool.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining limit, starting_after, or request_id. An agent cannot tell what starting_after should contain or what request_id is for from this definition.

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 names the exact operation and resource: 'List Yardstick tasks visible to the current principal.' It is specific and distinct from the sibling set, notably from yardstick_tasks_deep_link, and the principal scoping adds useful specificity.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites, filters, or typical use cases. The scope statement is helpful but does not help an agent decide between this and other list/detail tools.

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