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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description usefully carries the return burden by naming the fields returned (AI-use level, lawyer review obligations, checkpoints, restrictions, sources, jurisdiction versions).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action first and then enumerates the returned content; there is no filler. The list is dense but every item conveys something about the response.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only lookup, the definition covers what is fetched, which identifier it needs, and what the response contains. Since no output schema exists, the enumerated return fields are the right thing to include; only an explicit pointer on how it differs from get_jurisdiction_guidance 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the example id format and the optional jurisdiction slug. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 one task from the practice library") and enumerates the payload contents, so the agent knows this is a single-item detail retrieval rather than a list. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the similarly-named sibling get_jurisdiction_guidance, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, but the schema's task_id description ("The task id from search_library") implies the intended workflow: search first, then fetch details by id. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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