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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the privacy-minimal payload, that a PR Explanation result is durable and only available "once stored", and that Code Review returns status only. It does not state whether status partially completes, but the added behavioral context is real and non-obvious.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core operation is front-loaded and the per-execution-type caveats follow immediately. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still supplies the key variation across execution types and the asynchrony implied by "once stored". For a 2-parameter read tool with full annotation and schema coverage, nothing material is missing.

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 both parameters (execution_id from start_task, organization_id from list_organizations/get_started) are documented there. The description adds no format, syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get the current status ... of a task execution") and scopes it to executions "started through public MCP", then disambiguates the two execution kinds. It never names a sibling (e.g. get_workflow_run or list_tasks), so it stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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 tells the agent the prerequisite (an execution started via start_task) and routes it away from this tool for Code Review findings, which are delivered as PR review comments. It gives clear usage context but states no exclusions or alternative tool names for the status-only case.

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