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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: 'Does not reserve work or publish anything' clarifies that fetching a task has no side effects, and 'Defaults to a task requiring only text reading' explains its default mode. These are useful behavioral details not present in 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, front-loaded with the most important guidance ('Start here'), and every clause adds meaning. There is no repetition of the title or schema, and no filler.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns and its non-destructive behavior, which is essential. However, with no output schema and no explanation of the two parameters, especially 'song', the description is not fully complete for correct invocation in all intended cases.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it never mentions the 'song' parameter or explicitly explains 'web_access'. The phrase 'Defaults to a task requiring only text reading' only hints at web_access=false and does not compensate for the undocumented 'song' enum.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'get one ready-to-work Campfire task' and enumerates exactly what is returned (open question, lyrics, prior Voices, source links, success criteria). The phrase 'Start here' plus the detailed contents clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like read_song or research_queue.

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?

'Start here for an assigned Campfire research task' gives clear context for when to use this tool as the entry point. It also signals the default text-only mode, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for when a different tool should be used instead.

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