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

It discloses auth requirement ('requires login'), service permission check, the 200-task limit and reachingLimit truncation flag, the idempotent side effect of filling periodic periods on read, and the invites visibility rule (invites:null + invitesUnavailable for non-initiators, no error). This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and does not contradict them.

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 organized into clear sections (purpose, combo chain, pitfalls) with dense, information-rich sentences. Every sentence earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded. No redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's complexity, it covers permissions, limits, truncation, idempotent side effects, special invite visibility, and related tools for follow-up actions. Even without an output schema, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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 description adds meaning to all three parameters: goalId is implicit, includeClosed is explained with limit and truncation, and each include value (recruits, activities, series, invites) is described with its purpose and downstream tool links. Since schema coverage is only 33%, 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 states a specific verb ('view') and resource ('collaboration goal details, my permissions, collaborators, tasks'), and also enumerates the optional include blocks (recruits, activities, series, invites). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_collaboration_task and update_collaboration_goal by pointing to them for other actions.

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 context on how to use the include parameter ('don't ask for everything every time') and routes to alternative tools for creation/modification. However, it does not explicitly compare against other get/list tools (e.g., list_collaboration_tasks) or state conditions under which this tool should be avoided, so it stops short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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