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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description goes further by disclosing the nested shape of the response (what is returned and the capped history size of 20 with newest-first ordering), which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary purpose, but the long clause about earlierStands/earlierPlans and the history cap is dense and could be tightened. Every part is relevant, yet the phrasing is more verbose than necessary.

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 read tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the returned content and the history semantics well. It doesn't explicitly mention permissions or pagination, but those are less critical here and annotations cover safety.

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 schema documents 'ref' only by type, with no description, and documents 'history' fully. The description clarifies that 'ref' is a task reference like 'FET-014' and explains that history:true returns all earlier versions (last 20 each) rather than just the latest, compensating for the 50% schema coverage.

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 ('Get one task by ref, e.g. "FET-014"') and enumerates the returned sub-resources (fields, steps, jobs, decisions, comments, files). It clearly distinguishes this single-task fetch from list/search siblings and from fenbs_get_file.

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 when to use it (fetch a single task by ref) and explicitly points to fenbs_get_file for opening an attached file. It doesn't state exclusions such as 'use fenbs_search when you don't have a ref', but the context is clear enough.

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