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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context: ordered children, newest-first history, historyComplete semantics, base64 JSON chunking, nextOffset/sha256 continuation, and refusal of continuation when the task changes. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and return contents, then moves into ordering, pagination, and changed-task behavior. Every sentence carries operational information and there is 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?

Given a read-only single-task retrieval with an output schema, three parameters, and complex pagination behavior, the description covers all the important non-schema details: what is included, ordering, history completeness, chunking, and continuation failure handling.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning around pagination: large tasks return chunks, the caller should use nextOffset and sha256, and a changed task requires restarting at offset zero. It clarifies how offset and sha256 behave in practice.

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 task') and immediately enumerates what is returned: body, payload, draft, decision, approvedText, results, children, and history. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like task_list and task_update.

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 description gives clear operational context for retrieving a single task and explains continuation behavior for large tasks, including restarting at offset zero if the task changes. It does not name sibling alternatives such as task_list, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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