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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the description field is returned untruncated (unlike the noisier list), the recap/owner/tramo/backlog fields come back, and `comentarios` returns only a count plus the last one rather than the full thread.

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?

Front-loads what it returns, then the usage condition, then the comments caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the recap/owner/tramo/backlog enumeration is slightly listy and could be tighter.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey returns, and it does: all fields, untruncated description, and a `comentarios` summary with its own escape hatch to get_task_comments. Adequate for a simple two-parameter read tool, with only minor gaps around exact response shape.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both task_id and workspace_id (including the omit-to-get-all-workspaces behavior) are already documented in the schema. The description only implies 'por su id' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: fetch one whole task by id, all fields, with the description untruncated. It differentiates itself from the siblings that could be confused for it (get_tasks, get_task_comments) so the agent can pick it apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('cuando hace falta el contexto completo de UNA tarea') and contrasts with get_tasks ('la lista es más ruidosa'). It also routes the comment thread to get_task_comments, naming the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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