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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing a strong safety profile. The description adds the useful detail that refund status is included in the response, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens for non-existent or others' task IDs), result availability timing, or response structure. With annotations doing heavy lifting, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and enumerates the returned attributes without waste. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only query tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and output attributes (status, result, refund). Lacking detail on error cases or timing, but no output schema exists so some additional return-value explanation could help—though not strictly required given the description lists key fields.

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%, with the single taskId parameter documented as 'Task ID'. The description implies filtering by the caller's own tasks, adding a semantic constraint (本人) not captured in the schema, which is a small value-add. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 states a clear verb (查询/query) and resource (本人极速去字幕任务 - own subtitle removal task), including the specific attributes retrieved: status, result, and refund status. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_subtitle_tasks through the singular 'get by taskId' scope, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. '极速' (fast/express) is a helpful qualifier that could serve as differentiation but isn't contrasted with any sibling.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The required taskId implies the tool is for retrieving a specific known task, differentiating it implicitly from list_subtitle_tasks. However, no prerequisites (e.g., that it only works for tasks submitted by the caller) or alternatives are mentioned.

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