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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds the structural insight that stages are keyed by parent task, but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or error behavior when a stageId is not found.

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 short sentences, all earning their place, with the core purpose front-loaded before the parameter guidance. No redundancy or 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 read-only, two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description gives enough context to call it correctly. The only minor gap is that return content is undescribed, which is tolerable given there is no output schema and the resource is intuitive.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining WHY taskId is required (stages are keyed by their parent task) and by indicating the optional stageId narrows the result to a single stage.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (stages of a HyperExecute task) and clarifies the resource with examples (cache/prerun/scenario). An agent can distinguish it from getHyperExecuteTask and getHyperExecuteStageTasks, though it never names those siblings explicitly to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for the optional stageId ('Pass a stageId to return just that one stage') and explains when taskId is required ('Stages are keyed by their parent task'). It does not name alternative tools or a when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of a 5.

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