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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with no explanatory power, and the description justifies that by disclosing the side effect: it refreshes active analyses and persists their status and findings in Lightbringer. It also explains terminal vs in-progress states and that findings_error does not affect terminal execution status, which is meaningful behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

The purpose and return shape are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by side effects, status semantics, and exclusions, so the structure follows importance. It is slightly dense at four sentences, but each one carries distinct information with no filler.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't re-document return values, and it correctly focuses on the semantics an agent cannot infer: which statuses are terminal, how to read findings_error, and what the endpoint does not cover. The only gap is that it does not describe polling cadence or whether repeated calls advance an analysis, which an agent calling a refresh-on-read tool would benefit from knowing.

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 100% and there is a single task_id parameter, so the schema already documents origin, pattern, and length. The description only restates that task_id comes from start_innovation_feedback, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (returns an automated feedback task by task_id) and enumerates exactly what comes back: status, progress, findings, and per-analysis errors. It distinguishes itself from start_innovation_feedback by stating it returns the same shape, so an agent knows this is the polling counterpart rather than a duplicate.

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?

It gives real routing context: it is the read-side companion to start_innovation_feedback, and it explicitly excludes professional service requests, patent preparation, and filing milestones, which steers the agent away from misusing it for those workflows. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for those excluded cases, so it is strong but not complete when/when-not guidance.

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