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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds a genuine output-contract trait — 'returns only what is recorded; infers nothing' — which tells the agent the result is a faithful dump rather than a derived or enriched view.

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 tight sentences with no filler and the core purpose front-loaded. The trailing 'from create_task' is mildly ambiguous about whether it modifies 'task' alone or both 'task or ingress receipt', a small structural blemish.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the key question an agent has: what the call reports and that it does not infer. It stops short of describing the returned shape or clarifying how task_id vs receipt_id select the lookup mode.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the important consequence that omitting receipt_key makes links read-only. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's id semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (task or ingress receipt) and the state it reports, plus an extra output dimension ('who must act next'). It implicitly contrasts with create_task by consuming what create_task produced, though it never names the 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?

Usage is only implied: 'from create_task' signals it is the follow-up read to a create. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_evidence or verify_astranl, and no exclusions or prerequisites given.

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