Comfy task detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: 'served verbatim', counts only never a rate, comfy-funded and same-owner counted apart, and the data:null outcome for absent tasks. It stops short of auth or rate-limit details, keeping it a 4 rather than 5.

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 front-loaded sentences with no wasted framing; the scope and return contents come first, followed by the null-case. It is densely packed but every clause carries information, though the long parenthetical is somewhat heavy.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so fully, describing each returned component and the null case. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret the result is missing.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema fully documents the id. The description's '(tsk_ and 12 hex)' essentially repeats the schema's own format note, adding little beyond what's already structured, so the baseline 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?

States a specific retrieval verb and resource ('One task by id') and enumerates exactly what the response contains: the task, its acceptors in board order with record counts, the buyer's standing counts, and now_s. The singular 'one task by id' cleanly distinguishes it from the plural sibling comfy_tasks without ambiguity.

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 by the singular lookup and the note that a missing task yields data:null, but the description never explicitly names the alternative (comfy_tasks) or states when to prefer one over the other. An agent can infer the retrieval context but gets no explicit routing guidance.

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