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

Adds genuinely useful context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: what a completed task returns (receipt, fresh expiring Standard Statement handles), the 6-hour inactivity timeout and its failure semantics including that accepted documents persist, and that the taskId survives disconnects. It does not describe the terminal-state set or what a still-running response looks like, leaving a small gap; the output schema carries most of the return-shape burden.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scoping, then layers lifecycle and failure semantics, ending with read-only/metering. Dense but each sentence earns its place; the mention of the native Tasks extension is a slightly tangential aside, though it does legitimately redirect misrouted hosts.

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 single-param poll tool with an output schema and covering annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: how to obtain the id, what completed states return, failure timeout semantics, and where the operation sits relative to alternatives. Nothing material 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema only constrains taskId as a 1-255 char string. The description compensates meaningfully by stating where the taskId comes from (an accepted submit or create_standard_statements) and its lifetime (survives disconnects, doesn't expire independently of the workspace), which is real added meaning. It still does not state the format or whether other task types share the id space, so baseline-plus rather than full compensation.

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 ('Returns the current state of a durable FinStat Task'), names the non-blocking scope, and identifies the producing siblings (submit, create_standard_statements) that supply the taskId. An agent can immediately tell this is a poll-by-id tool rather than a wait tool or a list tool.

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?

Explicitly distinguishes itself from two alternatives: wait_for_workspace_idle/submit-style blocking behavior is implied by 'without waiting', and the description names tasks/get for hosts with the native Tasks extension. It also names the prerequisite (taskId from an accepted submit or create_standard_statements) so the agent knows the call ordering.

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