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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is side-effect free, nor does it mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the task does not exist or is still running). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action and target clearly and efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple single-parameter tool: it states the purpose and the input. However, without an output schema, it does not hint at the shape of the return value (e.g., statuses like 'completed', 'failed'), which could affect how the agent interprets results. This is a minor but real gap.

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 fully describes the task_id parameter, including format and provenance (returned by human_do). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 action ('check') and the resource ('status and result of a GroundTruth task') identified by task_id. It is specific and avoids tautology, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ground_truth_info, which could be a related but distinct tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema mentions task_id is returned by human_do, implying a workflow, but the description itself gives no context about polling patterns, timing, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer the appropriate usage.

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