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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: it requires an Authorization: Bearer <JWT> and restricts access to the poster, the winner's owner, or a superadmin, which is exactly the kind of authorization detail an agent cannot derive from annotations.

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 content is front-loaded with the core resource identity, and the single dense sentence wastes little space. It is slightly run-on, stacking return contents, access roles, and auth in three clauses, but nothing is filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so well: entries, run, verdict, score, winner, on-chain lines with explorer links, and totals. Access control and auth are also covered, leaving only the parameter's format unaddressed.

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 single parameter task_id is never explained in the description (no format, ID source, or example). The parameter name is self-evident and the phrase 'of a decided task' weakly anchors it, so it is not fully opaque, but the description adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource (the receipt + invoice of a decided task) and enumerates its contents (entries, run, screen verdict and score, winner, on-chain lines, totals), which is highly concrete. It lacks an explicit action verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings like task_get or get_task_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope phrase 'of a decided task' and the stated access rules, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many task_* siblings. An agent must infer when a receipt is wanted versus task_get or get_task_status.

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