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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds that results are 'full details' rather than summaries, which is a useful distinction from list-style siblings, but says nothing about behavior for unknown or partial order ids, batching semantics, or ordering of results.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence identifying the returned resource, the filter key, and the parenthetical clarification, plus the underlying endpoint. No filler; slight redundancy between the parenthetical and the noun phrase.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and beyond 'full details' it does not characterize the payload. It also omits what happens when an order id matches nothing, which matters for a batch lookup with up to 100 ids.

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. The description earns a bump by glossing 'order id' as 'the reference you set when creating a task', which resolves the ambiguity of what an order id actually is beyond the schema's bare example value.

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 and resource ('full details of the tasks') qualified by the lookup key ('carrying the given order ids'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like tookan_get_tasks or tookan_list_tasks, which also return tasks.

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: use this when you already hold order ids and want complete task records. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer tookan_get_tasks or tookan_list_tasks instead, leaving the agent to infer the selection rule.

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