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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the share_url is read-only, valid 30 days, and requires no login, plus it discloses the provenance fields (GPS distance, capture time, server checks) returned.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a dense but purposeful enumeration of return fields and the share_url caveat. Two sentences, no filler, though the middle list is packed.

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 must carry the return-value burden and does so by enumerating verdict, score, feedback, signed photo URLs, structured answers, provenance, and share_url. Only the failure/not-ready case is 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 coverage is 100% and the single dispatch_id is already documented as 'Id returned by errand_dispatch.' The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('verified on-site result from a human task') and then enumerates the payload (verdict, score, feedback, photo URLs, provenance, share_url). This is far more specific than a sibling like errand_get_status, though it never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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: the tool fetches a result, so an agent infers it is called after errand_dispatch completes. There is no statement of when to prefer this over errand_get_status, no prerequisites, and no note on what to do if the result is not yet ready.

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