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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds value beyond them: the visibility precondition, the not_found outcome for out-of-scope ids, and the datesFromSubtasks flag plus the resulting PARENT_DATES_FROM_SUBTASKS refusal on date edits. These are real behavioral constraints not derivable from annotations.

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?

Front-loads the verb+resource, then the disambiguation directives, then the return-shape block. The §Y1 field enumeration is long but each clause carries information (field list, collaborator definition, date-source semantics). Slightly dense, but no filler sentences.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned shared task shape and explaining non-obvious fields (collaborators, isManual, datesFromSubtasks). Combined with the access and error semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 parameter already documents that the id comes from list_tasks. The description does not add syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies for a single well-documented parameter.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Get full detail on one task by id (subtasks, dependencies, recent comments)'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings (read_agent_brief, get_subtree) so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: PREFER read_agent_brief after claiming a task, PREFER get_subtree when descendants are needed. Also states the access prerequisite (caller must have visibility into the parent project) and the failure mode for out-of-scope ids (not_found).

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