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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds value by explaining the polling behavior (default true) and the distinction between returning immediately vs. after completion, which is critical for agent expectations.

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 description is well-organized with a clear main sentence and a bulleted 'WHEN TO USE' section. It front-loads the purpose and uses minimal filler, though the bullet list is slightly verbose. Still efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential decision points for the agent: when to call, what polling behavior to expect, and the context of previously initiated tasks. It doesn't address error handling or edge cases like invalid task_id, but those are minor and likely covered by the output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (task_id, task_type, polling, is_preprocess) with adequate descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, 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 states a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('current status and results of a previously initiated AI processing task'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling generation tools. It is not a tautology and directly explains what the tool does.

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?

A dedicated 'WHEN TO USE THIS TOOL' section lists four explicit scenarios: when a user provides a task_id, asks about a previous task, resumes a conversation with a pending task, or checks after a timeout. This makes the usage context unambiguous, and the absence of alternatives is fine because the tool's purpose is unique among siblings.

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