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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: an authorization scoping rule ('only your own tasks') and the fact that the response carries billing, limitations and sources, not just a status flag.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the ownership restriction is appended where it reads naturally.

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 return-value burden and does so by naming the fields returned. Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret this tool; only explicit sibling routing 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% with only two parameters, both documented in-schema, including the useful clarification that access_token is task-scoped rather than an API key. The description adds nothing further about parameters, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a task's status') and enumerates the payload an agent gets back (progress, sources, limitations, result, billing). It distinguishes itself from web_batch_status by scoping to a single task, though it never names that sibling 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?

The clause 'Only your own tasks' establishes an ownership constraint, and the schema ties the id back to web_task_start, implying the polling-after-start flow. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as web_batch_status or web_task_cancel.

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