List client tasks for one id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful reliability caveat that the operation was inferred from web traffic and results should be confirmed, plus return keys, but it does not discuss pagination behavior or rate limits.

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 purpose and caveat are front-loaded, but the bulk of the description is a long verbatim enumeration of dozens of DataTables query parameters that duplicates the schema. That list does not earn its place and makes the definition unnecessarily bloated.

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 complex read-only tool with 66 parameters, the description supplies return keys and a caveat about inferred behavior. However, it does not explain how to use the DataTables-style parameters effectively, and the parameter documentation is largely a raw list, leaving some practical gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates query parameters seen and return keys, but largely repeats what the schema already exposes and does not explain the DataTables parameter semantics or which parameters are practically important.

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 states a specific verb and resource (list client tasks) with a clear scope (for one id), and includes the endpoint. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from task-oriented siblings such as search_tasks or list_tasks_calendar, so it falls just 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?

It implies usage when a client id is available, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives among the many sibling task and client list tools. The only guidance is a reliability caveat, not selection guidance.

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