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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes far beyond that, spelling out the full status lifecycle (submitted → accepted → delivered, or rejected), the meaning of seen_by_operator_at, when eta appears, and that a signed JWS receipt plus deliverable_sha256 become available on delivery. The offline verification instruction with the JWKS URL is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining clauses each carry distinct payload (returned fields, verification, rendering). It is dense and slightly long, but nothing reads as filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the full return-value burden, and it does: it enumerates status, history, seen_by_operator_at, eta, notes, receipt, and deliverable_sha256, plus the UI rendering path. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool 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 the sole parameter already carries a concrete example format (HFAI-2026-...), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'by its task_id' and adds no syntax or format guidance beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Look up a submitted task by its task_id') and immediately scopes it to tasks submitted elsewhere, which cleanly separates it from the submit/message siblings. An agent can distinguish it from submit_human_task or check_message_thread without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'a submitted task' plus the schema's note that task_id comes from submit_human_task makes the post-submission retrieval context clear. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it (e.g. polling cadence, or that message threads use check_message_thread instead), so there are no exclusions.

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