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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work by disclosing the shape and ordering of the payload (recentRuns, most recent first). It leaves out failure behavior (what happens with an unknown id) and does not explicitly state it is a pure read with no side effects, though "Obtiene" strongly implies it.

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 wastes no words and uses parentheses and a colon to organize the returned fields. It is dense but every clause conveys information; only the long run-on structure slightly hurts readability.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates well by describing the returned payload, its ordering, and where to get deeper run history. Only error/not-found semantics are absent, which is minor for a simple get-by-id tool.

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 the single id parameter is already documented and the description adds nothing beyond confirming retrieval is by id. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Obtiene una tarea recurrente completa por id") and then enumerates exactly which fields come back (content, estado, calendario, recentRuns, chip). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling task_runs_list and from tasks_list/tasks_search, which deal with collections rather than a single task.

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 gives a concrete routing rule for the main ambiguity: it returns only the latest runs and points to task_runs_list for more history. It does not spell out when to prefer this over tasks_search or tasks_list, but the single-id retrieval scope makes that implicit and unambiguous.

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