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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered. The description adds 'durable' (persistence beyond the call), which is genuinely useful, but it omits the task lifecycle (how the answer is retrieved) and never connects the non-idempotent hint to the idempotency_key parameter.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the condition following. No padding, though the brevity is partly what leaves parameters and lifecycle unexplained.

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?

An output schema justifies skipping return-value description, but the tool takes a nested, entirely undocumented context object, and the description says nothing about the async task lifecycle or how the expert answer is later fetched via get_expert_task/continue_expert_task. An agent cannot call this confidently.

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 0% across three parameters, including a nested context object with six undocumented sub-fields (model, vendor, runtime_mode enum, etc.). The description adds no meaning for question, context, or idempotency_key, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Create a durable research task') and frames it against 'deterministic knowledge', which implicitly distinguishes it from the query_* siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling directly, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Provides a clear triggering condition: use it 'when deterministic knowledge has no applicable answer'. That is real when-to-use guidance, but there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which alternative tools (query_domain_knowledge, query_network_knowledge) should be tried first.

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