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

With no annotations in the resource, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states that an API key is required and implies a read-only status lookup, but it does not explicitly say that no data is modified, nor does it describe error handling, rate limits, or caveats for missing/invalid task_ids.

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 two sentences with no filler: it states the operation first, then adds the crucial API key requirement. Every word earns its place, and the format is ideal for a tool with a single parameter.

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 simple status-lookup tool, the description is adequate but leaves two important gaps: it doesn't say how it differs from the sibling get_task_result, and with no output schema it doesn't explain what kind of status/progress data is returned. Since annotations are absent, the agent has to infer read-only behavior and tool selection from the tool name and minimal description.

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?

The schema already fully documents the only parameter, task_id, as the Id returned by create_task, and the description reinforces this connection. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description is not required to re-explain the parameter, but it also adds no new detail 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 and resource: it retrieves the status and progress of one previously created task. This clearly separates it from create_task, but does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling get_task_result, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'created earlier' implies the tool should be used after create_task returns a task_id, and 'Requires an API key' states an important prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer get_task over get_task_result or when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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