taskmarket_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares the operation public and anonymous, non-spending ('Never spends anything'), and LIVE, and it explains the phase/status values an agent will encounter. It omits failure behavior (e.g., invalid or unknown taskId) and any freshness/caching caveats.

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 core definition and usage guidance are front-loaded and efficient. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities…' is promotional cross-sell unrelated to this tool's invocation and dilutes focus.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the status/phase semantics, which is exactly the missing information an agent needs before calling it.

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?

There is one required parameter with 100% schema coverage and an explicit format pattern (0x + 64 hex chars), so the schema already does the work. The description only adds 'by ID', which is a mild restatement rather than extra meaning — baseline 3.

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 ('Get full detail and LIVE status for one TaskMarket task by ID') plus scope (single task, looked up by ID), which cleanly separates it from taskmarket_search and taskmarket_submissions. It also enumerates what comes back (description, reward, deadline, escrow tx, submission count, phase, status).

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?

Gives a concrete usage context: 'Use this after creating or delegating a task to check whether it is open, in review, awaiting settlement, or resolved.' It does not name an alternative or state when not to use it (e.g., vs taskmarket_search), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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