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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, so the description adds only incremental context: that include embeds related objects and that it maps to GET /api/tasks/{id}. It says nothing about error behavior for missing ids or response shape, which is acceptable given the annotation already covers safety.

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 compact sentences that front-load the core action and the optional include behavior. The trailing "Paymo: GET /api/tasks/{id}" is mildly redundant but small and useful for API mapping.

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?

With only two parameters at 100% schema coverage, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the single-task scope and how include works. Only minor gaps remain around selection against sibling list/read tools.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds concrete meaning beyond the schema's generic examples by naming specific include values (thread.comments, subtasks, entries, files, project). This makes the include parameter more actionable than the schema alone.

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 verb+resource ("Fetch one task") and its singular scope, which implicitly distinguishes it from paymo_list_tasks and paymo_update_task. However, it never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 explains the optional include path (when you want related objects embedded), giving implied usage context. It does not state when to use this tool versus paymo_list_tasks or paymo_update_task, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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