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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses that wait_seconds blocks and that it returns status, submissions, messages, and advice. It does not mention side effects (none expected), auth requirements beyond api_key (present in schema), or rate limits. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then usage parameters. No redundant or fluff content, every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is fairly simple (read operation with polling). The description covers what is returned, the polling parameters, and the advice field. No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of returned data is crucial and sufficient. Lacks details on error handling and output format, but acceptable for this 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?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (api_key has a description). The description adds meaningful details for wait_seconds (max 55, blocking) and since_status/since_messages (from last look), which compensates for the sparse schema. It does not detail task_id, but that is self-explanatory.

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?

The description clearly states the tool fetches a single task and lists specific components (status, submissions with evidence and URLs, message thread, advice field). This differentiates it from sibling tools like legwork_my_tasks (listing) and legwork_post_task (creation).

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 description provides clear context for polling usage: wait_seconds to block, since_status/since_messages for incremental retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context makes its role obvious.

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