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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the tool returns 'status/result', which is a minimal behavioral disclosure. It does not say what happens for a missing task, a still-running task, or a failed task, but with the annotations carrying the main burden, this is a passable but not rich behavioral description.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the action, resource, and parameter are all present and front-loaded.

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 is the only source of what the response contains. 'Status/result' is vague–it does not enumerate possible statuses (pending, running, completed, failed), define 'result', or indicate whether a completed result is embedded or referenced. An agent polling this tool would not know what to expect in the response body or how to detect success.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare 'task_id' string parameter. It merely says 'by task_id', which restates the parameter's role without explaining where the ID comes from, its format, or any relationship to a previously submitted background job. This is a clear gap for a tool whose only input is an opaque identifier.

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: 'Check the status/result of a background task' and names the identifier 'task_id'. The example 'long reference-detection job' clarifies the intended use case, and it is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which are all library/resource queries rather than async task management.

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 clearly implies when to use: when an agent has a task_id from a background job and needs its status/result. It provides the example of a long reference-detection job as context, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives. Given the absence of any sibling tool that handles background tasks, this is reasonably complete context.

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