list_tasks

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses several important behaviors: completed tasks are excluded by default, date bounds are inclusive calendar dates, filtered pages can be empty while still having next_page_token, include_completed also requests hidden tasks completed in Google apps, notes are omitted by default, and Docs/Chat-assigned tasks are omitted from default listings. These are substantive operational details an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the core operation, then adds dense, useful behavioral details in short sentences. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying defaults, date semantics, pagination edge cases, or omissions.

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 an output schema and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete for a read-only listing tool: it covers default exclusions, date bounds, pagination edge cases, and optional fields. It is only slightly short of complete because page_size behavior and explicit alternative-tool routing are not addressed.

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 very low (14%), so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does this well for several parameters: task_list_id must be an exact ID, due bounds are inclusive YYYY-MM-DD dates, include_completed has a special hidden-task meaning, include_notes defaults off, and page_token can coexist with an empty filtered page. It still leaves page_size and page_token input semantics largely to the schema, preventing a 5.

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: 'Read one page of tasks from an exact list ID.' The scope constraint ('exact list ID') helps distinguish it from broader search tools, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as search_tasks or get_task.

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 implies usage by saying it requires an exact list ID and excludes completed tasks by default, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus search_tasks or get_task. The default behaviors provide useful context, but alternative routing is left to inference.

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