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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond restating the endpoint path — no note on behavior for a missing/unknown id, no indication of whether the response is a single object or wrapped envelope.

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 short fragments, front-loaded with the resource, zero waste. It is arguably over-terse rather than verbose, so it does not suffer from padding, but the second fragment is mostly a restatement of the first.

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 single-parameter read with full schema coverage and a complete safety annotation set, the minimum needed to call it is present. However, with no output schema, the description gives no sense of what a task record contains or what happens on a not-found id, leaving modest 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter carries a UUID pattern and description, so the schema fully documents task_id. The description's 'by id' merely confirms the key without adding format or lookup semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific resource (one task) and the retrieval key (by id), plus the underlying endpoint GET /tasks/{id}. It is clearly distinguishable from aryeo_list_tasks and aryeo_create_task, though the verb is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied by the singular 'one task by id' versus the sibling list tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, and nothing tells the agent what to do if the id is unknown or whether to prefer list_tasks for discovery.

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