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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that sources/backlinks are included, that eventCount is a count rather than the events themselves, that the response is JSON, and it warns that text fields are untrusted user data rather than instructions. That prompt-injection caveat is a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure for a tool returning external mail/chat/page content.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope, event/sibling routing, return format plus safety caveat), with the core purpose front-loaded and 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?

With no output schema, the description properly compensates by sketching the return shape (all fields, sources/backlinks, eventCount, JSON). For a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only explicit pagination or field-level detail is absent, which is minor here.

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 id parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from list_tasks, search_tasks or get_task. The description adds no further meaning about the id format or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb-and-resource statement — 'One task with all fields and its sources' — that immediately tells an agent this is a single-item retrieval, implicitly contrasting with the list_tasks/search_tasks siblings. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of the top mark.

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?

There is a useful routing hint ('eventCount is the number of recorded changes; list_task_events reads them') that steers agents to the correct sibling for event detail. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer get_task over search_tasks or list_tasks beyond the mention of where the id originates.

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