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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real context beyond that: the 'consume_result' semantics, that the result is only available at terminal status, and the exact payload shape (ts_handle, counts, timings, map binding, no inline Territory Solution when a handle exists).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is, then the trigger condition, then the payload and id semantics. Dense with domain jargon (ts_handle, consume_result) but no filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them and adds the availability precondition and id semantics. For a single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, this is close to complete, with only minor ambiguity around 'as job_id'.

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 0% and the single task_id parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the burden. It does add meaning by explaining the id is a build's ts_handle or task_id (as job_id) that analyze consumes, which is more than the bare schema offers, though 'as job_id' remains slightly opaque.

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 verb+resource: it returns the originating tool's terminal result for a completed task, and frames itself as the non-Tasks-capable equivalent of native tasks/result. This distinguishes it from tasks_get (status) and tasks_cancel, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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 states a clear precondition ('once the task status is completed') and a context ('for clients without the Tasks capability'), and points at analyze as the downstream consumer. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative for polling status, 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.