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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations by detailing what the result contains, including evidence provenance such as GPS distance, capture time, and server checks. It does not note behavior when the result is not yet ready, but this is minor for a read-only fetch.

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 description is a single focused sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the trailing list is purposeful because it explains what the returned result contains.

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 read-only, single-parameter retrieval with no output schema, the description gives a comprehensive picture of the expected payload and provenance details. It could explicitly mention readiness conditions or how this relates to errand_get_status, but the core information needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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%, and the dispatch_id parameter is already documented as 'Id returned by errand_dispatch.' The description does not add further parameter-level semantics, but none are needed given the single, self-explanatory parameter.

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 opens with a clear verb and object: 'Retrieve the verified on-site result from a human task,' and then enumerates the exact contents (pass/fail verdict, score, feedback, signed photo URLs, structured answers, evidence provenance). This distinguishes it from siblings like errand_get_status, which presumably reports task state rather than the full verified result.

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?

The description implies that this tool is for fetching final verified task results, but it never explicitly states when to call it versus errand_get_status or errand_dispatch. It provides no exclusions or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer the correct usage context.

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