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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) and idempotency, but the description adds critical behavioral context: it warns about untrusted web-sourced data and instructs not to follow instructions within returned content. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs.

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 concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, providing usage timing and alternatives, and adding a security warning. No wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose.

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?

Given the annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema fully documents parameters, the description adds valuable usage timing, alternatives, and security warnings. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the markdown structure or potential errors, leaving a minor gap.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying taskRunOrGroupId is for completed tasks, which is minimal added value. 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('final task results as markdown'), specifying the output format. It distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with getStatus for polling and implying completion vs. creation tools like createDeepResearch and createTaskGroup.

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 states when to use ('Only call once task is complete') and when not to use ('If polling, use getStatus instead'), naming the alternative tool. This provides clear, actionable guidance for the agent.

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