Get a captcha task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description correctly reinforces 'read-only' rather than contradicting it. It adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations – a 10-minute result retention window and a ~5-second polling cadence – plus that the call is free. It stops short of describing failure states, such as what happens when the id has expired.

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 sentences: what it does, when to call it (with polling guidance), then retention and cost traits. The action and the trigger are front-loaded and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a single-parameter polling tool with a full output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide to call it: the trigger, the poll interval, the retention window, and the cost. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Task id returned by solve_captcha.' The description reinforces the same provenance ('a task created by solve_captcha') but adds no format, length, or validity semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the current status and solution of a task created by solve_captcha.' It explicitly ties the tool to the sibling that creates the task, so an agent can distinguish get_task from solve_captcha without opening any 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 gives explicit trigger conditions: call when solve_captcha returned status "solving" and poll roughly every 5 seconds, or use it to re-read an already received solution. It also names the sibling tool that produces the id, leaving nothing to inference.

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