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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful behavioral detail by listing the returned context pieces and the activity timeline boundary. The internal mismatch of '7-part spec' followed by only five named parts is a small transparency gap.

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 two dense sentences with no filler: the core action comes first, the return contents are structured as a list, and the imperative usage note is separated. Every sentence 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?

For a read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description does well to explain what is returned and to point to get_task_activity for older entries. It is slightly incomplete because it promises a '7-part spec' but lists only five parts, leaving the full response shape somewhat ambiguous.

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?

The single task_id parameter is fully documented in the input schema, including accepting an 8-character reference or pasted URL, so the schema bears the semantic load. The description only repeats 'by id' and adds no new parameter detail.

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 states a precise action ('Fetch') and resource ('a Tango task by id') and enumerates what the return bundle contains, so an agent immediately knows this is the by-id task context reader. It also distinguishes itself from get_task_activity by routing older entries to that sibling.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Always read activity before starting work,' and calls out get_task_activity as the alternative for older entries, which tells the agent when not to rely on this tool for deep history. The 'full context bundle the next agent needs' framing makes the intended use case clear.

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