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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: it is free, requires agent:read scope, and that task handles are private to the owning agent. It does not say what happens when the handle belongs to another agent or the id is unknown, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the strongest identifying facts (free, read-scoped, private task inspection) before usage and the privacy caveat. The clause listing authorization/funding/acceptance is dense jargon but earns its place by previewing the payload.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must imply return content, which it does by enumerating authorization/funding/acceptance steps and canonical funds state. Error and unauthorized-handle behavior are the only material omissions for a single-parameter read tool.

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 documents only type/format/required for task_id (0% description coverage). The sentence "Task handles are private to their owning agent" adds real semantics beyond the schema by telling the agent the handle must come from its own agent's context, not an arbitrary UUID.

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 and resource: it inspects a route task handle, returning owner authorization/funding/acceptance steps and canonical funds state. This clearly distinguishes it from browse_tasks (listing) and get_route (route-level state), though it never names those siblings 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?

"Use while tasks/result waits for a terminal result" gives a concrete condition for selecting this tool, i.e. a polling companion for a blocking call. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the alternative sibling for route-level or list-level inspection.

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