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

This is the definition's strongest area: it explains the non-obvious side effect that a verified result is marked delivered on first read, which accounts for readOnlyHint=false despite being a read. It also discloses download_url validity (15 minutes), file retention (14 days), and inline content for small text files. It stops short of describing error behavior when a task_id is unknown or belongs to another account.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then file handling, then the delivery/state rules. The parentheticals are dense but every clause carries real information. Slight cost: the file-handling and state-machine rules are compressed into long semicolon chains that take a second pass to parse.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the return shape and does so thoroughly, including conditional delivered states. The main gap is that it never explains reply_session's effect on visibility, which is the one non-obvious parameter 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 coverage is 50%: reply_session is documented in the schema, and task_id is self-evident as a uuid. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, not even the session-scoping behavior of reply_session that affects which tasks count as the caller's own. Baseline 3 is appropriate at this coverage level.

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 the resource (a task's result) and enumerates the payload precisely: summary, evidence, logbook reference, and returned files with name/size/download_url/content. It is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from status-oriented siblings like task_status, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 clearly conditions use on task state: verified results are readable and marked delivered, results awaiting requester_review come back with delivered: false, and other unverified results are refused. It also routes the reviewer case to task_review. What is missing is an explicit 'use task_status first / instead' statement against the sibling tools.

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