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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: credentials must be passed as an argument or header, are never placed in URLs, and are never echoed in errors, plus the rule that it never assigns your own game. This is useful beyond the structured 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the remaining two sentences are short and non-redundant. Minor waste in the credential-handling sentence, which reads as security boilerplate, but overall tight.

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 and no annotations covering returns, the description should say what the fetched task contains or what happens when no eligible task exists, and it does not. The mismatch between the 'status' name and the 'read a task' behavior also leaves the caller guessing about the return shape.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the alternative of supplying the credential via an Authorization header rather than the argument, which is marginally additive but does not refine the parameter's format or constraints 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one eligible task') and adds a scoping discriminator ('from another author; never assigns your own game') that separates it from the certification siblings. The name 'certify_status' implies a status query while the body describes task retrieval, so intent is clear but slightly misaligned with the name.

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 only guidance is authentication mechanics ('supply credential or configure the Authorization header'), not when to choose this tool over certification_task, start_certification, or certification_state. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named.

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