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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the polling use case, but does not disclose response format, error behavior, or what 'status' contains. Since the annotation lowers the bar, the added context earns a 3 rather than lower.

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 sentences, both informative and front-loaded with the core action ('Status of a single task by id'). No filler or redundant phrasing; every word 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is nearly complete. It implies the response is the task's status, but does not describe the response structure or error handling. Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the parameter meaning. It states 'by id', which clarifies that task_id is the identifier of the task, but adds little beyond the parameter name itself. For a single self-explanatory parameter, this is adequate though minimal.

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 ('get status') and resource ('task') with a clear identifier ('by id'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_tasks (plural) and cancel_task/retry_task (different actions). The addition of 'Use to poll long-running operations' further clarifies its intended role.

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 gives a clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use to poll long-running operations.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use list_tasks or cancel_task instead, so it stops short of full guidance.

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