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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does useful work: it discloses the default status filter, result ordering (overdue first, then due time), the meaning of "today" in shop time, and field-worker visibility rules. It does not explain pagination or limit behavior, but the core behavioral traits are present.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and filters, then ordering and visibility scope. Every clause adds useful information without waste.

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 six-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers filtering, defaults, ordering, and visibility scope. It omits limit/pagination semantics and does not explain the required shop_id, but no critical calling behavior is missing for a read list.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the status and due enums, including the open default, and maps "worker" and "job" to assignee_id and job_id; however, it leaves the required shop_id and the limit parameter unexplained.

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 identifies a task-listing operation scoped to visible tasks, with filters for worker, job, status, and due date. It does not explicitly contrast itself with tasks_create, tasks_update, or tasks_close, but the resource and read/list intent are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to see tasks, with status defaulting to open and optional due filtering. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as search_global or schedule views, and no stated exclusions.

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