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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful non-annotation context: the returned data includes cost and hour tracking, amounts are bare numbers without currency, and get_organization_settings must be called for currency_code before presenting amounts.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the critical currency caveat. No wasted words; the second sentence earns its place by preventing a likely misinterpretation of monetary values.

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 single read-only lookup with rich annotations, the description covers purpose and the important currency dependency. However, with no output schema, it only partially describes return content (cost/hour tracking) and does not mention not-found behavior or other returned task fields.

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 sole parameter is fully documented in the schema ("Project task ID", UUID format), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description repeats only "by ID" and adds no format or identifier guidance beyond the schema baseline.

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 ("Get a single project task") with a clear scope ("by ID"), and the mention of cost/hour tracking distinguishes it from a bare lookup. An agent can differentiate this from list_project_tasks or update_project_task without opening schemas.

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 phrase "by ID" implies the tool is used when the caller already has a task UUID, but no alternatives such as list_project_tasks are named for finding one. The currency instruction adds an auxiliary-call guideline, though it is about interpreting results rather than selecting this tool.

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