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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose real traits — result ordering (newest first) and the default state filter — but says nothing about read-only safety, result limits/token budgeting, or how pagination (cursor) behaves. Partial disclosure for a zero-annotation tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action and ordering before the filter clauses. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

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 6-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the terse description is mostly adequate but omits the fact that passing 'id' switches the tool from listing to reading a single task — a materially different mode documented only in the schema. Pagination/token-budget behavior is also left unexplained.

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 coverage is 50%, and the three undocumented-in-schema params (state, skills, hive) are exactly the ones the description names. It also adds information the schema does not contain: state defaults to 'open'. The remaining params (id, cursor, max_tokens) already have schema descriptions, so the description usefully compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List tasks') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first') and the filterable dimensions, so an agent can immediately tell this is the read/query tool among the task_* siblings. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 filter list and the '(default open)' note implicitly describe how to use the tool, but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as task_claim or task_review. Usage must be inferred.

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