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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond the schema by stating that taskId is a UUID, key is a short identifier like BLG-T42, and the caller should provide either one. It does not describe behavior when both arguments are supplied or error/not-found behavior, but 'Get' clearly implies a safe read operation.

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 description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is immediately actionable. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-task retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: the target resource and the two identifier options. It leaves minor ambiguity around combined inputs and result content, but an agent can likely call it correctly with the information given.

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 schema only describes 'key' and leaves taskId undocumented, while schema coverage is 50%. The description compensates by clarifying that taskId is a UUID and key is a short key format, and by indicating that the two are alternative identifiers. This adds meaningful invocation guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('a single task'), and the 'single' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks and other task operations. An agent can immediately identify what this tool does and when to reach for it.

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 intended use is implied: retrieve one task by taskId or key. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives such as list_tasks or update_task, and no statement of when not to use this tool. The context is clear but not fully articulated.

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