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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing the actual return contents — the asker's own words, the surrounding call lines, and any linked fix request — which is real information an agent needs to decide whether this call answers its question. It omits error behavior for an unknown or expired task id, which is the remaining gap.

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?

One front-loaded sentence, with the core action stated before the payload enumeration. The inline list of returned fields is long but every item is substantive. Minor cost is that the sentence is dense enough to require a second read.

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, the description must describe returns, and it does so concretely for a one-parameter read-only tool. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly. The only missing piece is what happens on a missing or inaccessible task id.

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%, and the single parameter is already documented as a task id in the tmt_… format. The description adds no format, lookup, or validity detail beyond that, so the schema carries the full parameter burden and a baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Returns one task") and scopes it precisely as a task "handed over from a call" fetched in full. It enumerates the payload (asker's request, who asked, preceding call lines, related fix request), which lets an agent distinguish it from list-style siblings like my_tasks. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required single id parameter signals a fetch-by-id lookup rather than a listing or mutation. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_transcript, get_action_items, or my_tasks, nor any note that it should not be used to modify a task. An agent can infer the intent but must do the routing work itself.

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