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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the exact data sources (playbook, roadmap, first100days) and the merging behavior. It also states 'free', which is not in annotations. No contradictions.

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 precise sentences: first states purpose and data origins, second gives usage guidance and sibling reference. No redundant words; information is front-loaded.

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 the presence of an output schema for return values, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool retrieves, from which sources, how the source parameter works, and the read-only nature. It integrates well with annotations and schema requirements.

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% with good base descriptions for ideaId and source. The description adds context about source parameter: 'pick one plan or get all of them merged,' which clarifies how the enum values affect the result beyond the schema's 'Which task source to retrieve'.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves structured tasks and milestones for an idea from specified sources (Execution Playbook, Product Roadmap, First 100 Days simulation). It distinguishes itself from the sibling update_task by mentioning 'use update_task to tick First 100 Days items off.'

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to retrieve tasks) and when not (use update_task for mutating tasks). It also explains the source parameter behavior: 'pick one plan or get all of them merged.' The note 'Read-only and free' assures safe usage.

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