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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful precondition that the task must be 'started' (not merely actionable), but says nothing about permissions, limits, or failure modes when the task isn't started.

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 with zero filler; the resource/scope statement is front-loaded and the routing hint follows. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The output schema is present, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, neither the schema nor the description explains the two required inputs, leaving the definition only marginally adequate for invoking the tool correctly.

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 0% across two required parameters (id, brandSlug), and the description provides no meaning, format, or relationship guidance for either. With no enum and no per-parameter text, an agent must infer that id is the task identifier and brandSlug scopes it — a real gap the description does not close.

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 what the tool surfaces — 'the task window of a started task: progress, history and assignee' — and explicitly distinguishes itself from the similarly named parse_task. It doesn't lead with a verb ('returns'/'fetches'), but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

It routes the agent away from this tool when the task is 'ready to act on,' directing to parse_task first, which implicitly defines when to use this one (an already-started task). No further prerequisites or exclusions are given, but the key alternative is named with a selecting condition.

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