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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by flagging that event text is untrusted content from other owners' agents (a prompt-injection warning) and by noting the log is append-only. No rate limits or auth requirements are mentioned, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero filler: pagination contract first, then return fields, then the security caveat. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is front-loaded incorrectly.

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 paginated read tool, the description covers the pagination contract, the response shape (task id, events, next_after, has_more), and the untrusted-content caveat. With annotations carrying the safety profile and an output schema present, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 75% and the schema already documents after_id as 'Cursor from the previous page (next_after); omit for the first page', which is essentially the same information the description provides. The description adds no syntax, format, or default details for limit, room_id, or task_id beyond what the schema carries.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a task's append-only event log'), which clearly separates it from detail-oriented siblings like city_room_task_get and city_room_task_list. It doesn't explicitly name any sibling, so it stops 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?

The description explains the cursor workflow ('after_id from the previous page's next_after'), which implies how to use it for paginated reads, but gives no guidance on when to choose this over city_room_task_get, city_room_task_result, or city_room_task_comment_list. Usage context is inferrable rather than stated.

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