find-tasks-by-date

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: startDate='today' includes overdue items, default responsibleUserFiltering excludes others' tasks, and person-specific queries require responsibleUser. These details affect how an agent invokes the tool and interprets results, going well beyond the annotation basics.

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 four short sentences, each providing distinct information: purpose, special startDate behavior, default filtering, and a usage condition for person-specific queries. There is no redundancy or filler; it is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds high-value details. This is an ideal length and structure.

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?

Given the tool's 9 parameters, rich schema, and annotations, the description covers the most crucial behavioral aspects (date range, overdue handling, default filtering) while schema covers the rest. It does not explain pagination or label filtering, but those are well-documented in the schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool, with minor gaps on edge cases like overdueOption nuances.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful parameter nuance: it explains the interaction between startDate and overdue behavior, and clarifies the default responsibleUserFiltering value. This goes beyond the individual schema descriptions, though it does not cover all nine parameters (e.g., labels, cursor, overdueOption are left to schema). It adds significant value but is not exhaustive.

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 starts with 'Get tasks by date range', which is a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like find-tasks by narrowing to date-based queries. It also highlights key behaviors such as startDate='today' including overdue items, reinforcing its unique scope. This makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (date-range queries) and mentions a specific prerequisite for person-specific queries (requiring responsibleUser). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools like find-tasks for non-date-based searches. Thus it provides strong contextual guidance but lacks explicit exclusions and alternatives.

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