List pending rating tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the value of rating tasks ('earns fast hours' and 'feeds personalisation profile'), but it does not disclose anything else beyond that, such as return format or ordering. That is acceptable given the annotations, but not exceptional.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. It leads with the action and resource, then provides motivational context. There is no wasted wording or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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-parameter, read-only list operation with annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool returns conceptually and why it is useful. It does not describe the exact response shape, but there is no output schema to reconcile and the operation is simple.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document. The description compensates naturally by explaining what the listed tasks are and why they matter. There are no parameter ambiguities to resolve, so the baseline 4 applies.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('image-rating tasks Midjourney is offering this account'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_jobs or list_folders. The title reinforces this with 'pending rating tasks', giving the agent a precise understanding of the operation.

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 for when to use the tool: when the agent needs to retrieve image-rating tasks offered to the account. It also explains the motivation ('earns fast hours and feeds the account's personalisation profile'), which helps the agent recognize relevant scenarios. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but this is a simple, distinct list operation.

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