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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing a hard visibility boundary – tasks in private projects are not returned over MCP – which is exactly the kind of behavioral constraint annotations can't express.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the payload summary and followed by the scoping caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 needn't explain return values, and it does cover the key visibility restriction. For a one-parameter read tool that is nearly complete; only the ID format caveat 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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description would need to compensate. It implies identifying a single task but never states that task_id must be a numeric string (the schema's ^\d+$ pattern), so an agent could plausibly pass a slug or prefixed ID.

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 the resource (a single task) and enumerates what the response includes – fields, checklist items, comment count, recent activity – so an agent can tell it retrieves one task in full rather than a list. It gestures at the sibling relationship via 'same rule as list_tasks' but never states the verb 'retrieve' explicitly, leaving the name to carry that.

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 mention of the private-project visibility rule and its reference to list_tasks implies these two tools share scope, but it doesn't say when to call get_task versus list_tasks or update_task. Usage is inferable from 'one task in full' rather than stated.

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