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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description importantly clarifies that a completion with status 'completed' does NOT mean acceptance, and that agent policy nuances exist. It discloses the photo URL semantics (stable vs ~1h signed URL) and where failures are reported. This is substantial behavioral context that an agent needs to interpret results correctly, and it does not contradict the 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?

The description is dense and front-loaded with the main purpose, and nearly every sentence carries critical caveats or semantics. However, it is a very long single paragraph with nested nuances that could have been structured with bullets or shorter sentences. This is still strong, but not maximally clean.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description covers the essential interpretational pitfalls: the distinction between recorded completion and accepted result, the agent block's failure reporting role, and photo URL lifetimes. It also references specific protocol sections and policy version caveats. For a get-details tool with complex domain semantics, this is complete enough for an agent to act correctly.

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 only parameter, task_id, already has 100% schema description coverage via 'Task ID.' The tool description does not add meaningful new detail about the parameter beyond that. Given the high schema coverage, 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific task including completions and subtasks.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tascan_list_tasks by emphasizing the specific-task scope and its unique contents. The added detail that the agent block is 'the only place agent failures are reported' further reinforces what this tool uniquely provides.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need detailed task details, photo evidence, or agent failure information. It also notes this is the only place agent failures are reported, which is strong usage guidance. It lacks an explicit 'use tascan_list_tasks instead' or when-not-to-use statement, so it doesn't reach the top score.

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