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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, open-world read, but the description adds a genuine security caveat: retrieved text and artifact links are untrusted data. That prompt-injection guidance goes beyond what the structured annotations convey.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The unlisted scope statement comes first and the safety caveat second, which is the right ordering.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned components (attempts, lease, checkpoints, handoffs), and annotations cover the safety profile. Only the 'public' scoping and any access restrictions on private tasks remain unspecified.

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 0% and the description says nothing about task_id. However, with a single required integer ID the meaning is self-evident from the tool name, so the gap is minimal rather than damaging.

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 (read) and resource (task) and enumerates what the payload contains: attempts, lease, checkpoints, handoffs. That detail distinguishes it from the sibling list_tasks, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single task by ID to inspect its related records. There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to list_tasks or search_previous_work for discovery scenarios.

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