Resolve Asana task GID to Everhour task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining how it constructs the Everhour ID ('as:<asanaGid>'), that it fetches the task in one step, returns the same record as everhour_get_task, and handles 404 errors explicitly.

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 description is well-organized with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). It is concise, using no more than two sentences per section, and every sentence adds essential information without fluff.

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 two parameters (one required), no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is fully complete. It explains the tool's role in the workflow, the parameter formats, what the return value is (reference to everhour_get_task), and how to handle errors. No gaps remain.

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 the schema itself documents both parameters. However, the description adds practical context: for asana_task_gid, it provides the extraction rule from Asana URLs (e.g., after /0/), and an example. For response_format, it clarifies the output types. This enhances the schema's description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Look up an Everhour task by the underlying Asana task GID.' It explains the ID mapping ('as:<asanaGid>') and distinguishes itself from siblings like everhour_get_task and everhour_log_time_for_asana_task by focusing on the Asana-to-Everhour lookup.

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?

The description explicitly advises: 'Use this before logging time when the user gives you an Asana ticket URL or GID.' It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context implies that if you already have an Everhour task ID, you should use everhour_get_task. Error handling is also provided.

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