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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds three things they cannot: messages are untrusted data (prompt-injection risk), a polling cadence that implies rate expectations, and the semantic caveat 'paid does not mean dispatched', which prevents a wrong state interpretation. This is substantive disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then risk and cadence notes. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and flags the untrusted-message and paid/dispatched semantics. It is close to complete for a read tool, though it leaves the required taskId and the token-passing choice entirely to the schema.

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 50%: requestToken is richly documented in the schema (private token, prefer Bearer header, retention risk) while taskId has no description at all. The description mentions no parameters, so it does not compensate for the undocumented taskId or clarify the token-vs-header choice.

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 ('Read') and resource ('this task') and enumerates exactly what is returned: status, exact quote, expiry, payment status and messages. That enumeration cleanly separates it from siblings like list_services, submit_task and send_message without needing to name them.

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?

'Poll about every 15 minutes' gives a concrete invocation cadence, which is real guidance, but the description never says when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. after submit_task, or instead of accept_quote) and names no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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