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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond annotations by clarifying accepted ID formats (LAB-42 or UUID) and warning against inefficient looping, which reflects real behavioral expectations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the return value, the second explains accepted identifiers, and the third gives usage guidance with a concrete alternative. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 read-by-id tool with two fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent what it returns, how to identify the task, and when to prefer the sibling list_tasks, with no missing information needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents task_id and project_id. The description reinforces that task_id accepts a human id or UUID, but this largely duplicates the schema's own parameter description and adds nothing about project_id's optional-once behavior.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns one task in full', then enumerates the fields included (description, dates, assignee, labels, status, parent). It also distinguishes itself from list_tasks by noting it provides detail behind a single row.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when a row from list_tasks needs the detail behind it.' It also gives a clear when-not and alternative: 'Do not loop it over a whole backlog — filter with list_tasks instead, which is one call rather than fifty.'

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