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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that by listing the specific status values an agent should expect and mentioning the event timeline, which helps set expectations for the response shape.

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 focused sentences carry all necessary information: the status enumeration is front-loaded, and the usage timing is stated in a single follow-up sentence. There is no fluff or repetition of 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 single-parameter read-only status tool, the description covers what it does, when to call it, and what to expect in the response (status and event timeline). With no output schema, a brief mention of the return value would be nice, but the status list plus timeline is adequate for correct invocation.

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%: dispatch_id is already documented as 'Id returned by errand_dispatch.' The tool description reinforces this by calling the task 'previously dispatched' and saying to use it after errand_dispatch, but it doesn't add substantive new parameter-level meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('Track') with a clearly scoped resource ('previously dispatched local human task') and enumerates the status values ('open · accepted · arrived · submitted · completed · failed · cancelled · expired'). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like errand_get_result, which would retrieve the eventual outcome rather than the live status.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use after errand_dispatch while the person is traveling or working on site.' It names the correct predecessor and context, though it doesn't explicitly describe when not to use it or mention alternatives like errand_get_result.

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