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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: polling is expected, a task waiting on a participant is 'a normal state, not an error,' and the response includes a recommended next action. This helps the agent interpret non-final states correctly.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and returned content, the second lists the response dimensions, and the third gives essential polling guidance. Key behavioral warnings are front-loaded after the main purpose.

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?

For a simple read-only status tool with two documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, includes the crucial polling behavior, and clarifies that pending human action is not an error condition. Nothing essential for an agent to call it correctly 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 task_id described as 'The task_id returned by submit_human_task' and taskin_agent_id as a 'Taskin-issued agent identifier.' The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but the schema fully covers parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the current status of a task previously created on Taskin with submit_human_task.' It clearly identifies the target object and links it to the sibling creation tool, making the tool's role obvious and distinct from search or submission.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: after submitting a task, poll this rather than assuming a result. It also establishes that waiting on a person is normal. It does not explicitly name search_human_task as the alternative for finding tasks, but the polling guidance and relationship to submit_human_task convey the primary usage scenario.

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