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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the authentication model (pre-provisioned MLAIEL bearer scope read_public, custom auth rather than OAuth), which an agent needs before attempting the call. It stops short of describing the failure mode when the source is not public.

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?

Two compact sentences, no filler, with the access condition and the auth requirement front-loaded. Every clause carries new information.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the definition covers scope, visibility precondition and auth requirements. The residual gaps are the unexplained identifier and the absence of any statement about return content or error behavior, which matters somewhat since there is no output schema.

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?

There is one parameter, publicId, and schema description coverage is 0%; only the UUID format and regex pattern communicate its type. The description never mentions the parameter, where its value comes from, or what it identifies, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 scoped resource: 'Read your own task.' The phrase 'your own' distinguishes it from the other task tools (create_own_task, delete_own_task, transition_own_task) that act on the same resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_own_tasks.

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 a real precondition — the task's source must still be public — which tells the agent when the call will succeed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over list_own_tasks or how to behave if the source is no longer public.

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