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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by detailing exactly what payload comes back (spec, handoffs, receipts, artifacts, timeline) and the workflow rule for consuming `activity` first.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the fetch purpose and the returned bundle come first, the workflow imperative follows, and the API reference is last. No sentence is 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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly, plus it supplies workflow guidance. An agent has everything needed to call and use the result 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 coverage is 100% and the single `task_id` parameter is fully documented there, including accepted formats. The description only says 'by id', adding no syntax or constraint beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a Tango task by id') and immediately scopes it by enumerating the returned context bundle. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling read tools like get_task_activity or get_task_review.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Always read `activity` before starting work' and names the alternative route for older data ('use get_task_activity for older entries'), giving both a when-to-use directive and a sibling hand-off.

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