List tasks and alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results default to active items and that the payload mixes two entity types (tasks and alerts), which is real context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result volume.

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 compact sentences with the entity types front-loaded and the (important) default stated last. No filler, though it is terse enough that a bit more structure around parameters would have been worth the space.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the default scope, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits return shape and result ordering, but annotations cover safety and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 has to carry parameter meaning. It explains the 'active' default and gives concrete examples of task and alert categories, which helps disambiguate the category enum, but it never addresses the status values completed/deleted/all or clarifies how category=all interacts with the default status.

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 the resource clearly (tasks, including custom and Lendlord-generated ones like MISSING_DUE_DATES, plus alerts like Payment Overdue), which lets an agent distinguish it from mutation siblings such as create_task and update_task. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative list tool or stating its scope relative to siblings, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'Defaults to active ones' hints at the default filtering behavior but doesn't tell the agent when to reach for this tool versus, say, filtering elsewhere. Usage is only implied.

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