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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by explicitly reinforcing that it 'Creates nothing' and explaining the conditional return of the live branch (only if one exists). It doesn't cover rate limits or auth needs, but for a simple read this is sufficient.

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?

Highly concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and the key behavioral constraint. The parenthetical and trailing phrase feel slightly awkward but do not waste 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 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and key behavior. It could specify the return type or format, but with annotations and full schema support, nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so both taskID and repositoryID are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions neither parameter, so it adds no semantic value beyond the structured fields – baseline 3 is correct.

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: returns the branch name for a task. It distinguishes the two outputs (server-convention name and live branch) and explicitly clarifies that this is a lookup, not a creation.

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?

Implicitly indicates when to use: when you need the convention branch name or the task's live branch. However, no alternatives are named and no exclusions or prerequisites are given, so 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.