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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, setting the safety baseline. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the status lifecycle, seen_by_operator_at semantics, ETA, operator notes, and the JWS receipt verification process. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose ('Look up a submitted task by its task_id') and then efficiently lists the response fields in three sentences. While information-dense, it contains no filler or redundant phrases, and the structure is logical. It could arguably be two sentences, but the detail justifies its length.

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 explaining return values. It thoroughly covers status, status history, seen_by_operator_at, eta, operator notes, receipt, and deliverable_sha256, including a verification URL. For a single-parameter lookup tool, this is comprehensive and complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the only parameter (task_id), including a description and example. The tool description does not add any extra parameter explanation, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Look up a submitted task by its task_id.' It specifies the resource (submitted task) and the action (look up), and the detailed return fields further define its scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_human_task (submission) and message_human_operator (messaging).

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 after task submission (e.g., 'Look up a submitted task') and details what information is returned, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, 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.