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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does add real context: the 100-task batch cap, the HTTP endpoint (POST /v2/get_job_details), and a full status-code legend that an agent cannot get from structured fields. It stops short of noting rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens with invalid job ids.

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 return fields are front-loaded in a single dense clause, and the status-code legend is compact and high-value. The first sentence is a long run-on that would be more scannable as structured lines, but little of it is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields (customer, addresses, agent, timestamps, tracking link, custom fields) and the status-history option, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It omits error behavior and the contents of 'additional info', which are minor gaps for a read tool with readOnlyHint.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds a little ('optionally the status history' maps to include_task_history, 'up to 100' restates maxItems) but never mentions include_additional_info, so it does not go beyond the schema meaningfully.

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 and resource ('Full details of up to 100 tasks by job id') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. The 'by job id' qualifier subtly separates it from sibling lookups like tookan_get_tasks_by_order_id, but it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the lookup-by-job-id path, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or exclusion against tookan_list_tasks or tookan_get_tasks_by_order_id. The alternative routing is left to inference.

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