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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing that output is 'bounded' and that raw chain-of-thought and unrestricted worker logs are never returned, which is meaningful redaction context an agent could not 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?

Two sentences with zero filler, and the core operation plus the safety guarantee are both front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description needn't explain return values. However, it leaves gaps for a multi-sibling task tool: no statement of how these events relate to agent_task_status/result, and no hint about what an event record contains or cursor behavior at the end of the stream.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially compensates by mapping the cursor semantics ('after an event cursor') to after_seq and hinting at 'bounded' for limit, but says nothing about task_id expectations or the 1-200 limit bounds beyond what the schema itself encodes.

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 ('Read ... progress summaries') with a scope qualifier ('after an event cursor'), which tells an agent this is an incremental event-feed read. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as agent_task_status or agent_task_result, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 only implied by the phrase 'after an event cursor'; there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus agent_task_status, agent_task_result, or agent_task_list. No prerequisites, exclusions, or polling guidance are given.

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