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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining what the returned task includes, including the machine-applicable diff format. It does not discuss authentication or pagination, but those are minor for a single-resource lookup.

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 definition is front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by the usage condition. The parenthetical listing of diff formats is dense but earns its place by clarifying what 'full change' means.

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 one required parameter, complete schema coverage, and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value and does so in detail. It is nearly complete for an agent to call it correctly, missing only a note on error behavior for invalid task 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%, and the schema already explains that the task parameter is a task id from get_compliance_plan. The description does not add further syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description states a specific resource—one task of the compliance plan—and enumerates the full contents: the change to apply, where to apply it, the legal requirement, last verification, and next_action. It distinguishes this from the plan-level sibling by emphasizing retrieval of a single task.

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?

It gives clear conditions for use: when the plan JSON was truncated or before applying a task. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings such as get_compliance_plan or verify_task, but the triggering context is specific enough to guide selection.

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