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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds that results include 'full details and relationships', hinting at response breadth, but says nothing about behavior when the ID does not exist or about default relationship expansion.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and the lookup key. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema, and it is sized appropriately for a simple fetch tool.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return shape, and both parameters are documented in the schema. The remaining gap is minor: no statement about missing-ID behavior or whether relationships are expanded by default versus only via `include`.

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 both `id` and `include` are already documented, including the 25-record truncation behavior for to-many expansions. The description's 'relationships' wording loosely gestures at `include` but adds no syntax, defaults, or valid relationship names beyond the schema.

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 ('Get a single task by ID') plus the scope of what comes back ('full details and relationships'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from list-tasks-tool by requiring a single ID, but never names the sibling retrieval tools explicitly.

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: 'by ID' signals this is for fetching a known task rather than enumerating tasks, which nudges an agent away from list-tasks-tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives like search or list-tasks-tool, and no note on what to do if the ID is unknown.

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