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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that an 'event' is a 'task list' and that the response includes its tasks. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify the response scope.

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 a single clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and it includes the key behavioral note about including tasks. There is zero redundant content.

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 read-only operation with one fully documented parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently indicates what the tool returns (details plus tasks). No additional context is needed to use it effectively.

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 single parameter list_id is fully documented in the schema ('Task list (event) ID') with 100% coverage. The description only reiterates the 'event/task list' relationship without adding syntax, format, or parameter-specific details beyond the schema.

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 states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('specific event'), and adds the crucial parenthetical '(task list)' to clarify terminology. It also notes 'including its tasks', which distinguishes it from siblings like tascan_list_events (listing many events) and tascan_get_task (fetching a single task).

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 phrase 'specific event' implies this is for fetching one event by ID, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus tascan_list_events for enumeration or tascan_get_task for a task's details. Usage context is implied, not spelled out.

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