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

Annotations cover safe-read semantics (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the response contents, notably the 'refund state' — useful signal for a task that consumed credits. It stops short of explaining what refund states mean or how polling should be paced.

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 front-loaded sentence that conveys the verb, the resource, and the payload with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 correctly enumerates what comes back (status, result, refund state), which is the key gap it needed to fill. Only minor gaps remain, such as what the refund states signify or whether results are available while status is still pending.

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% for the single taskId parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format or provenance detail (e.g., where the ID comes from) beyond what the structured field provides, which is the expected baseline.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Get ... subtitle removal task') plus a preview of what is returned (status, result, refund state). It is clearly distinguishable from list_subtitle_tasks and submit_subtitle_task, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 phrasing 'your subtitle removal task' hints this is called after submit_subtitle_task, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of the list_subtitle_tasks alternative. An agent must infer that this is a point lookup by task ID rather than a listing.

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