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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'Requires task-owner auth' and 'Never performs payment' are important access-control and side-effect disclosures not captured in annotations. The 'already-generated' phrasing also signals that the tool is non-blocking and does not trigger work.

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 extremely compact: three short sentences, each carrying useful information. The core action is front-loaded, with auth and behavioral exclusions following naturally. No wasted words.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema available, the description is complete. It names the resource, states the auth requirement, clarifies side-effect absence, and makes its position among task lifecycle tools clear.

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 input schema already includes a well-described task_id parameter with 100% coverage ('Completed Nexus task id whose stored deliverable should be read'). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('already-generated Field Agent result' / 'completed task deliverable'), and the title reinforces the scope as a getter for completed deliverables. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like nexus_complete_task and nexus_find_tasks without needing to open their schemas.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: the result is already generated, so the tool reads rather than executes. It also gives explicit when-not behavior ('Never reruns work and never performs payment'), though it does not name alternative sibling tools directly, such as nexus_complete_task or nexus_find_tasks.

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