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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotations: it defines exactly when `changed` is true, what is monitored, what a false result means, and caps the wait at 55 seconds. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's behavior without relying only on annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core wait-and-return behavior, and every sentence earns its place: wait semantics, changed-flag meaning, and usage guidance versus get_task_status.

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 complete enough for invoking the tool correctly: it covers timing, return payload, changed semantics, and the polling alternative. A minor gap is that 'owned task' is not further defined, and there is no output schema, but the annotations plus the description cover the key invocation context.

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%, so the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents task_id and timeout_seconds. The description reinforces the timeout cap and the alternative list_task_events, but does not add substantial per-parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb (wait) and resource (owned task), explains the timeout cap, and states the returned payload and `changed` flag semantics. It also distinguishes itself from the polling sibling get_task_status, so an agent can distinguish them without opening the 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?

It explicitly says to use this tool instead of repeatedly calling get_task_status while waiting for a worker, and points to list_task_events for longer gaps. The when-to-use guidance is direct and actionable.

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