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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, which is minimal. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the result is recipient-reported and does not independently establish correctness. This is a meaningful caveat beyond the schema and annotations, though it doesn't disclose side effects like whether the task is marked complete or if the sender is notified.

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, no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the caveat about recipient-reported completion is a single additional sentence. 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 has an output schema and only 2 parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., task must be accepted), what happens after completion, and how the result object should be structured. The caveat about correctness is useful but the description is thin for a state-changing operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'result' and 'accepted task' but does not explain the structure of the result object or the task_id format beyond what the schema already provides. The description adds minimal semantic value for parameters; the schema's pattern and required fields do the heavy lifting.

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 ('records a result') and resource ('an accepted task'), and adds a meaningful qualifier: completion is recipient-reported and does not establish correctness. This distinguishes it from accept_task, decline_task, and cancel_task, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 implies usage: it is for the recipient of an accepted task to record a result. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like send_task or cancel_task, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., task must be accepted). The 'recipient-reported' qualifier gives some context but no explicit 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.