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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by naming what comes back, notably taskExecutorResponse as 'the last execution result' — context the annotations cannot convey and there is no output schema to carry it.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then the id source, then the return payload. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and flags taskExecutorResponse's meaning, which is the main ambiguity for a task-detail tool. It does not mention behavior when the id is unknown or invalid, a minor gap given a one-param read-only 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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is already documented as coming from scheduled_task_list, so the description's identical hint is redundant rather than additive. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get one scheduled task') with singular scope, and explicitly contrasts with the sibling that produces the id (scheduled_task_list). An agent can distinguish it from scheduled_task_list and scheduled_task_delete 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?

The parenthetical '(from scheduled_task_list)' tells the agent where the required id comes from, which establishes the intended call sequence (list first, then get). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or stating the alternative for fetching multiple tasks.

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