advbox_list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose the paired date requirement and 90-day maximum range, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination or return format, though 'List' implies read-only.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides a critical constraint. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the key action. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is succinct but adequately covers the essential context: it states what the tool does and highlights a key restriction (90-day range). The schema covers parameter details, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It could mention response format, but for a list tool the implied paginated list is sufficient.

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?

The schema already documents all 15 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly stating the maximum 90-day date range constraint, which is not present in any parameter description. This gives the agent additional context for constructing valid date filters.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List tasks/appointments from Advbox.' This precisely identifies the tool's action and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like advbox_list_customers and advbox_list_lawsuits.

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 provides clear context that this is for tasks/appointments and includes a critical usage constraint: date filters require both start and end dates and the date range is limited to 90 days. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the tool's name and purpose make the use case obvious.

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