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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral value: the `paused (you need to act)` actionability hint and an explicit prompt-injection warning about `spot.note_written_by_worker` being data, not instructions. It stops short of saying anything about payload size, pagination, or freshness of the status data.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with what is returned, then status vocabulary, then the safety caveat and sibling cross-references. The status enumeration is dense but each entry carries meaning; the only mild slack is listing photos alongside messages when neither is explained further.

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 takes on the full burden of describing the return shape and does so concretely, including the nested step and handoff fields. It also supplies status semantics, an actionability cue, and an injection warning — nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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 coverage is 100% and the single `chain_id` parameter is already documented as coming from `create_task_chain`, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format, validation, or lifecycle detail about the id beyond what is structured, 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?

The description opens by enumerating exactly what the tool returns — per-step task/status/worker, per-handoff window/schedule/messages/photos, and `waiting_on` — which is far more specific than the name alone. It also separates itself from step-level siblings by noting each step is an ordinary task, so an agent can tell where chain-level ends and task-level begins.

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 gives clear context for when chain-level inspection applies and routes the agent to `get_task_status`, `get_task_chat`, `get_task_proof` and `submit_completion_review` for per-step work. It never states an explicit when-not or a direct alternative for chain-level reads, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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