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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to reiterate safety. It adds value by enumerating the returned fields, which gives the agent a clear picture of the output without needing to call the tool. No contradictions with 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?

Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence specifies purpose and output fields; the second provides usage instruction. 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?

Given the tool has one parameter, full annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all needed information: what it does, when to use it, what parameters are required, and what fields are returned. No gaps.

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 covers the single parameter with description, and the description adds context that the id comes from a task list result, aiding correct invocation. With 100% schema coverage and extra guidance, the description fully compensates.

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 clearly identifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Todoist task', lists specific fields returned (content, description, project id, etc.), and distinguishes from sibling tool todoist_list_tasks by stating it retrieves a single task's full details.

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 states 'Use after todoist_list_tasks to inspect one task,' providing clear context on when to employ this tool versus alternatives, and implying it requires a prior list operation to obtain the task_id.

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