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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond them: 'opening a task leaves no trace,' it is a 'cheap read,' and it intentionally skips evidence lookups. This gives the agent useful expectations about side effects and limitations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 enumerates the returned content, the second states read-only/no-trace behavior, and the third gives the key limitation and routes to the sibling tool. It is front-loaded with purpose and has 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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete: it covers scope, safety, behavioral limitations, and the relevant sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 task_id parameter already includes provenance guidance ('exactly as move_tasks / move_plan returned it'). The description adds context about scope but does not need to add parameter-level semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns one task on the signed-in person's move and enumerates exactly what it contains (due date, state, draft, waiting fields). It also distinguishes itself from move_tasks by noting that move_tasks is the only place 'in progress' appears.

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?

It explicitly says what this tool does not tell you (whether the task is in flight) and names move_tasks as the alternative where that information appears. It also scopes the tool to the signed-in person's move, giving clear context for when to use it.

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