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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses non-obvious semantics an agent cannot guess: budget is absent when no budget exists, a failed Task still returns as a successful call with status=failed (so agents shouldn't treat it as an error), include_result returns a not-ready snapshot rather than blocking, and access is scoped to Tasks the caller started.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then edge cases, then the optional-parameter behavior, then the access rule. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: payload shape, failure semantics, budget absence, non-blocking result fetching, and permission scope. Return-value formatting is correctly left to the output schema.

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 50% with task_id undocumented, but the description still conveys what a Task is and adds real meaning to include_result beyond the schema text (it returns the deliverable or a not-ready snapshot without waiting). The task_id parameter's semantics are inferred rather than explained.

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 plus the exact payload: status, queue position, and budget breakdown (accepted, charged, held, remaining Credits). It is clearly the single-Task read rather than a listing or cancellation, though it never names sibling alternatives like task_list or task_list_events.

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?

"Use this only when status is useful to the user or downstream AI" gives a clear gating condition and implicitly discourages gratuitous polling, and the include_result sentence explains the non-blocking alternative to waiting on the agent. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when status is not needed.

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