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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing that the task chat is returned as a single page, that designs are only surfaced via imported markers, and that raw design links without a designs entry are not imported. These are meaningful behavioral facts beyond the annotation.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good. However, the body is one long run-on enumeration of returned fields and the usage hint is tacked on at the end, making it dense and hard to scan rather than concise.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so thoroughly (spec, gist, relations, transitions, designs, attaches, chat). Combined with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret the tool.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description references includeFeatureSpec and the chat page only in passing, adding little semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 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 opening states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a task or bug by ID or number (unique within the company),' which is unambiguous. It then enumerates the returned context fields, reinforcing what the tool is for. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like task_search or task_code_context.

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 offers a trigger condition ('Useful when the user mentions a task number or asks about a task'), which is implied usage guidance. But 'asks about a task' is broad enough to overlap with task_search, and no alternative tool or when-not condition is named.

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